Space Habitats and Habitability - Designing for Isolated and Confined Environments on Earth and in Space 9783030697396, 9783030697402

Table of contents :
Foreword
Preface
Objective of the Book
How This Book Came into the World
Sheryl´s Story
Sandra´s Story
Towards a Habitability for Humanity
Acknowledgements
Contents
About the Authors
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 The Unforgiving Environment
1.2 Defining Habitability
1.2.1 Elements of Habitability
1.3 The Cost of (Not Including) Habitability
1.4 Basic Assumptions
References
Chapter 2: Habitability: From Place to Space
2.1 Habitability as PLACE
2.2 From Exposure to Experience
2.2.1 The Early Years: Moving from Pure Exposure to Experience Through Chamber Research
2.2.2 Seeking Real Risk, Isolation and Confinement Through Operational Habitats in Isolated and/or Extreme Environments
References
Chapter 3: Habitability as SPACE
3.1 A Paradigm Shift Within Habitability Analogue Research
3.2 Identifying the `Relevant´ Habitability Issues for Extraterrestrial Environments
3.2.1 Experience Commonalities Among Extreme Environments
3.2.2 Move from Short Duration Missions to Long Duration Missions
3.3 Habitability Design as Countermeasure: Addressing the Negative Effects of ICEs
3.4 How to Evaluate and Prove Effectiveness: Operational Versus Research Simulation Facilities
3.5 The Challenge of Future Missions
References
Chapter 4: Review: Studies and Architecture of Habitability Missions in Mockups and Simulated Environments
4.1 Increasing Fidelity for Habitability Studies
4.2 Early Missions: Arctic Expeditions with Fram
4.2.1 Fram Architecture and Design
4.2.2 Habitability, Experiences and Lessons Learned
4.3 Habitability Missions in MOCKUPS and SIMULATED Environments
4.3.1 Biodome Missions: Closed Ecosystems
4.3.1.1 Bios-3
4.3.1.2 Biosphere 2
4.3.2 The IBMP Facility
4.3.3 Human Exploration Research Analogue (HERA)
4.4 Summary of Habitability Missions in MOCKUPS and SIMULATED Environments
References
Chapter 5: Review: Studies and Architecture of Habitability Missions in In-Situ Environments
5.1 Habitability Studies in Terrestrial In-Situ Environments
5.1.1 Underwater Research Laboratories
5.1.1.1 Conshelf I-II
5.1.1.2 Tektite I-II
5.1.1.2.1 Facility Architecture and Design
5.1.1.2.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned
5.1.1.3 Aquarius and NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO)
5.1.1.3.1 Facility Architecture and Design
5.1.1.3.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned
5.1.2 Antarctic Research Stations
5.1.2.1 Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station
5.1.2.1.1 Facility Architecture and Design
5.1.2.1.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned
5.1.2.2 Vostok Station
5.1.2.2.1 Facility Architecture and Design
5.1.2.2.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned
5.1.2.3 Concordia Research Station
5.1.2.3.1 Facility Architecture and Design
5.1.2.3.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned
5.1.3 Other Terrestrial Facilities
5.1.3.1 Haughton-Mars Project (HMP)
5.1.3.1.1 Facility Architecture and Design
5.1.3.1.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned
5.1.3.2 Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station (FMARS)
5.1.3.2.1 Facility Architecture and Design
5.1.3.2.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned
5.1.3.3 Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS)
5.1.3.3.1 Facility Architecture and Design
5.1.3.3.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned
5.1.3.4 HI-SEAS
5.1.3.4.1 Facility Architecture and Design
5.1.3.4.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned
5.2 Habitability Studies in Extraterrestrial In-Situ Environments
5.2.1 Salyut Space Station
5.2.1.1 Facility Architecture and Design
5.2.1.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned
5.2.2 Skylab Space Station
5.2.2.1 Facility Architecture and Design
5.2.2.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned
5.2.3 Mir Space Station
5.2.3.1 Facility Architecture and Design
5.2.3.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned
5.2.4 Spacelab Module
5.2.4.1 Facility Architecture and Design
5.2.4.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned
5.2.5 The International Space Station (ISS)
5.2.5.1 Facility Architecture and Design
5.2.5.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned
5.3 Summary of Habitability Studies in In-Situ Environments
References
Chapter 6: Projections
6.1 Life in Extreme Environments
6.2 The Survey
6.2.1 The Participants
6.2.2 The ICEs
6.3 Individual Reflections on Habitability by the Inhabitants
6.3.1 Experienced Challenges of the Living Space
6.3.1.1 Controlled/Laboratory Simulation HABs (Fig. 6.4)
6.3.1.2 In-Situ HABs (Fig. 6.5)
6.3.1.3 SPACE HABs (Fig. 6.6)
6.3.2 Experienced Positive Impacts of the Living Space
6.3.2.1 Controlled/Laboratory Simulation HABs (Fig. 6.7)
6.3.2.2 In-Situ HABs (Fig. 6.8)
6.3.2.3 SPACE HABs (Fig. 6.9)
6.3.3 How Future Extraterrestrial Habitats Might Differ (Fig. 6.10)
6.3.4 The Three most Desirable Characteristics of Future Living Spaces
6.3.5 What Would You Take?
6.3.6 Other Important Aspects Related to Habitability
Reference
Chapter 7: Looking Forward: How to Convert a Tin Can into a Home: Exploring Solutions to Selected Dimensions of (Socio-Spatial...
7.1 Introduction: Can We Build THE Perfect Habitat?
7.2 Designing for the `Best Fit´ Person
7.2.1 AhhMission + Personality!
7.2.2 PLUS the EXPERIENCE of the Environment!!
7.2.3 Summary
7.3 What You Take Is What You Have: Limited Space, Limited Resources and Limited People!
7.3.1 The Question of `Adequate Volume´
7.3.2 Limited Space = Limited Availability!
7.3.3 Microgravity = New Spaces
7.3.4 Making the Most of all Resources
7.3.5 Designing for a Limited Social Environment
7.3.6 Summary
7.4 Camping Versus Residing
7.4.1 Living in McMurdo Station
7.4.2 The Early Days of American Astronauts on Mir
7.4.3 Summary
7.5 Looking out and Looking in: What Makes Us Feel Confined?
7.5.1 Crowdedness: Too Much, Too Close!
7.5.1.1 Terrestrial Examples: Antarctica and Aquarius
7.5.1.1.1 Antarctica
7.5.1.1.2 Aquarius
7.5.1.2 Orbital Examples: Mir and ISS
7.5.2 A Lack of Stimuli: Monotony and Boredom
7.5.3 Stretching Boundaries
7.5.4 Summary
7.6 Bringing our Own Green: Lack of Natural Elements
7.6.1 Fractal Geometry and Bionomic Design: Unraveling the Mystery of Greenery!
7.6.2 Surrogate Views: The Potential of Individual Plant Systems
7.6.3 Summary
7.7 Space Roommates: Social Logic of Space
7.7.1 When the Need for Privacy Becomes a Territorial Issue
7.7.2 Zoning out Social Conflicts: When Little Things Become Big Things
7.7.3 The Path to a Person´s Heart Is Through Their Stomach, Fine Manners Help
7.7.4 Friendship, Intimacy and Sex
7.7.5 Summary
7.8 Habitats for Humanity: Crafting Our Home Among the Stars
References
Index

Citation preview

Space and Society Series Editor-in-Chief: Douglas A. Vakoch

Sandra Häuplik-Meusburger Sheryl Bishop

Space Habitats and Habitability Designing for Isolated and Confined Environments on Earth and in Space

Space and Society Editor-in-Chief Douglas A. Vakoch, METI International, San Francisco, CA, USA Series Editors Setsuko Aoki, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan Anthony Milligan, King’s College London, London, UK Beth O’Leary, Department of Anthropology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, USA

The Space and Society series explores a broad range of topics in astronomy and the space sciences from the perspectives of the social sciences, humanities, and the arts. As humankind gains an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the structure and evolution of the universe, critical issues arise about the societal implications of this new knowledge. Similarly, as we conduct ever more ambitious missions into space, questions arise about the meaning and significance of our exploration of the solar system and beyond. These and related issues are addressed in books published in this series. Our authors and contributors include scholars from disciplines including but not limited to anthropology, architecture, art, environmental studies, ethics, history, law, literature, philosophy, psychology, religious studies, and sociology. To foster a constructive dialogue between these researchers and the scientists and engineers who seek to understand and explore humankind‘s cosmic context, the Space and Society series publishes work that is relevant to those engaged in astronomy and the space sciences, while also being of interest to scholars from the author‘s primary discipline. For example, a book on the anthropology of space exploration in this series benefits individuals and organizations responsible for space missions, while also providing insights of interest to anthropologists. The monographs and edited volumes in the series are academic works that target interdisciplinary professional or scholarly audiences. Space enthusiasts with basic background knowledge will also find works accessible to them.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11929

Sandra Häuplik-Meusburger • Sheryl Bishop

Space Habitats and Habitability Designing for Isolated and Confined Environments on Earth and in Space

Sandra Häuplik-Meusburger Institute of Architecture and Design TU Wien Vienna, Austria

Sheryl Bishop University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston, TX, USA

ISSN 2199-3882 ISSN 2199-3890 (electronic) Space and Society ISBN 978-3-030-69739-6 ISBN 978-3-030-69740-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69740-2 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover design: Paul Duffield This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

When I was a young boy, and my mother wanted to get the truth from me, she would capture my attention and say; “Tell me what really happened.” This book is like that: It captures your attention, and lets you look long and honestly at what’s happening as we gain experience for projected long-term living in space. It surveys the many earth-bound “analogue” studies done, and summarizes the on-orbit experience to date, including the former Soviet Salyut and Mir, the US Skylab, and current International Space Stations. Across all of these, the lessons are clear: We can keep space crews alive and working productively in the confines of space craft, but we have not yet learned how to give them a home away from home. Living in space has been until now a high-tech camping trip at best. As we extend stays on the Moon and possibly Mars, it is going to have to become something different, and more. Habitats will have to become supportive and nurturing homes for their inhabitants. The authors are well suited to make this case: One is a Social Psychologist with decades of experience in the Extreme Environments field. The other is a Space Architect with the keen sense of how Design plays a crucial role in how crews of Isolated and Confined Environments experience and perform throughout their stays. Together, they show through the interviews they’ve collected that while we’ve got the engineering right for the most part, we are just beginning to appreciate the social psychology involved, and we as yet have to acknowledge effects of the habitat design. Hopefully, their book will help change all that. It is really something that every spacecraft engineer and planner should read: This is what is actually happening to the people we are sending aloft. It is a testament to their bravery and fortitude that they have performed as well and consistently as they have. But it has not been because of the design of what they lived in, but mostly in spite of it. And the communications protocols, the command structures, the crew selection procedures have not helped all that much either, and have occasionally proved almost disastrous. But crews find workarounds, and endure, and occasionally rebel. But they do not

v

vi

Foreword

thrive. And that is what they will have to do if we envision years or more far away from Earth. It is tempting to think that all of this is a question of improved technology: Give them more video games, higher fidelity communications, a space “smartphone,” perhaps. But it’s not. It’s about how they live and interact every day, and how the environmental design of the habitat supports all of that. And what this book brings clearly home is that we haven’t begun to think about how good that could be. We’ve taken the “bargain basement” approach instead, thinking that if we get the physics and the basic physiology supported, all will be well. But it won’t be, and this book shows why. Reading it is in some ways like sitting down in a quiet “Bier Stube” with all of those former crewmembers of all the analogue bases and previous space stations and asking them: “Tell me what really happened.” Then listening very closely, because through the pages of this book, they will tell you. Richland, WA, USA

James A. Wise

Preface

Objective of the Book Human factors and habitability are important topics for working and living spaces. For space exploration, they are vital for mission success. Human factors and certain habitability issues have been integrated into the design process of human operated spacecraft; however, there is a crucial need to move from mere survivability to factors that support thriving. ‘Habitability’ and human factors will become even more important determinants for the design of future non-commercial and commercial spacecraft and extraterrestrial habitats as larger and more diverse groups occupy off-earth habitats for longer periods of time. The ‘risk of an incompatible vehicle or habitat design’ (NASA [HSIA], 2020)1 has been identified by NASA as a recognized key risk to human health and performance in space. This book provides an overview of the historic advancements of human operated spacecraft, as well as highlighting various current and future concepts of habitability and their translation into design. The main goal of this book is to promote a dialogue between the diverse concepts of habitability and their socio-spatial and psychological dimensions. Selected dimensions are reviewed from multiple backgrounds, and possible design and architectural related applications are illustrated and discussed. The authors explore various concepts of the term habitability from the perspectives of the inhabitants as well as the planners and social sciences and highlight common features and differences. A major focus of this book is to explore and hopefully stimulate creative solutions to the unique challenges inherent in crafting livable spaces in extraterrestrial environments, fostering a constructive dialogue between the researchers and planners of future inhabited spacecraft and extraterrestrial habitats.

1 NASA [HSIA], 2020. Risk of Adverse Outcome Due to Inadequate Human Systems Integration Architecture, published 07/30/20. https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/risks

vii

viii

Preface

The book will benefit individuals and organizations responsible for human operated space missions. It also provides insights of interest to researchers of social sciences, psychology, engineering, architecture, and design. The focus of this book is on the issue of designing living spaces for extreme environments and, particularly, extraterrestrial environments. Its findings address the basic socio-spatial relationships as they are applicable to other extreme environments and even for compact urban living on Earth. In addition, it unveils the authors’ experiences of the relationship between habitable space and the environment and thus relates back to Earth and our very normal daily life.

How This Book Came into the World Psychologists and architects are natural allies, joined by their search to support people in their varied endeavors2 (Harrison 2009, p. 890).

The authors share a common passion on the relationship between space and humans, and have approached their research from different angles. While Sheryl has always been hunting for the answer to the question of ‘what constitutes the “best” fit person to live happily in extraterrestrial environments’, Sandra has been chasing after ‘what constitutes the space to live happily in (extraterrestrial) environments’. This book is a real synergetic achievement towards designing living spaces for space environments, and this chapter tells you how it started. Sandra Häuplik-Meusburger and Sheryl Bishop have known each other for many years through their work. They first met in person at a conference in Glasgow in 2008. A bit later they started to collaborate on research projects and publications. And during a lunch in Vienna in 2017, collaboration for a book project was set into motion. Before the authors talk about their collaborative work on this project, read the individual stories of Sandra and Sheryl.

Sheryl’s Story I can remember the sense of relief I felt when I discovered Bertalanffy’s General System Theory (1968)3 in college which defined a system as a complex of interacting elements, open to, and interacting with, their environment, acquiring qualitatively new properties through emergence and continually evolving. Bertalanffy considered general system theory a ‘general science of wholeness’. In an era where

2

Harrison, A. A. (2010). Humanizing outer space: architecture, habitability, and behavioural health. Acta Astronautica 66(5–6), 890–896. 3 Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications. New York: George Braziller.

Preface

ix

reductionism and specialization was king, I thought ‘Finally, something that fits me’. In his advocacy of interdisciplinary inclusiveness, I found permission to pursue a career as a ‘generalist’ instead of following the trend of professional specialization. As a social psychologist, I was free to pursue all aspects of human development across the entire lifespan and range across the vast spectrum of ‘normal’ (aka non-pathological) human behavior as my interests took me. It served me well as I pursued the fairly esoteric answer to ‘what constitutes the ‘best’ fit person to live happily in extraterrestrial environments’? Answering THAT question would lead me to pursue hundreds of factors that influence wellbeing and afforded me opportunities to work with all kinds of engineers, architects, biologists, neurologists, geologists, physicians, astronomers, astrophysicists, chemists, pharmacists, and not a few of my own colleagues from the fields of psychology and psychiatry over the last 30 years. In the mid-1980s, I had the good fortune to stumble across the work of a fellow psychologist/mathematician/environmental scientist, Jim Wise, who was proposing that including patterns in interior designs that mimicked the same kinds of patterns found in nature improved human performance and wellbeing. His work and subsequent others (e.g. Wise and Rosenberg 1986; Wise and Taylor, 2002)4 suggested that we could craft human habitats that were automatically functionally beneficial and supportive in addition to providing shelter and ensuring survival. Coupled with the myriad evidence for the beneficial effects of including ‘natural’ elements (aka plants, trees, water features) in the ‘built environment’ from other sources, there was an explosion of interest and research on incorporating nature, eventually called biophilic design, into every aspect of human habitation. And, thus, my research into how to ensure optimal adaptation and functioning for small groups situated in extreme environments such as those our future space explorers would face intersected with the world of architecture and interior design. Because where we live affects how we live. The early attempts to explore how incorporating natural elements affected individual and group dynamics were met with large indifference from the primarily engineering-oriented research community associated with space. Humans were viewed as those irritatingly inconsistent and unpredictable ‘users’ that repeatedly went ‘off-nominal’ with virtually everything involved in a spacecraft. They demanded windows to look out of when there was no functional need for windows, cues for ‘up’ and ‘down’ in a microgravity environment that could take advantage of 360
of surface and unconsciously circumvented surfaces used for eating instead of taking the more efficient path of floating over them. There were irreconcilable cultural differences over the types of hygiene facilities desired (showers versus saunas) and water treatment (iodine versus biocidal silver) that resulted in duplicated

4

Wise, J. A. & Rosenberg, E. 1986. The effects of interior treatments on performance stress in three types of mental tasks. Technical Report, Space Human Factors Office, NASA-ARC, Sunnyvale CA.; Wise, J. A., Taylor, R. P. (2002). Fractal design strategies for enhancement of knowledge work environments. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 46(9), 854-858.

x

Preface

systems (water treatment) and initially minimal bathing facilities (washcloths) for the International Space Station. Proposals to add such unessential aesthetics such as color, textiles, or textures much less actually introduce living plants were enough to put architects and environmental/social psychologists on the ‘do-not-invite’ list for space project planners. But we simply would not go away. As my circle of architect colleagues expanded and I was blessed with opportunities to work with individuals like my co-author, the need to move to ‘thriving not just surviving’ became undeniable and eventually was incorporated into NASA’s Human Research Roadmap. As with all paradigm shifts, rhetoric eventually leads to action. All I can say is that it was about time!

Sandra’s Story I love the combination of science and fiction, in that it includes a vision of where we want to go and a possible path to reach it. I have always wanted to know how things work and how they are connected. When I started to study architecture, I became even more intrigued by the interrelations between space and humans. I had always felt that built space influences human behavior and now I was about to look behind the mechanics of this ‘human-space system’. I enjoyed lessons on how material properties can change user behavior and that the actual physical surroundings are related to certain human behavior. Humans read space; they connect physical appearance to function, to social behavior. Without having to think about it we (in the Western hemisphere) ‘know’ how to behave in a church, in a dwelling area, or at a playground. No signs are necessary. This close relationship between built space and lived space slowly became unveiled and I started to translate those experiences into real architecture. My first designed and built space was a fashion shop in Vienna for one of my best friends. It was a tiny space, and had to function as a tailor’s workshop, a showroom, as well as an event location. I designed every single piece of interior, from the lamp to the stowage space, and we choose the materials very carefully. The interior concept followed the idea of a catwalk and became a multipurpose yet minimalistic space. Today in 2020, my friend is one of the top Austrian designers and the shop interior still fits the changing garments and activities. Retrospectively, I also realized that in order to create a real sustainable space, it is of huge importance to identify (which is a most complex and sensitive task) and integrate the client’s requirements and identity into the design process from the very beginning. Later, for my dissertation I chose to research the relationship between humans and ‘space’ (the social and physical space they live in) in an extreme environment. The idea was that in an extreme environment (see Chap. 1), where inhabitants cannot exist without a built environment, where they heavily rely on ‘what is there’, and where they ‘cannot go outside to take a breath of fresh air’, I would discover something new.

Preface

xi

I was blessed to have Richard Horden, former professor in Architecture and Product Design at the Technical University of Munich5 and the creator of the term ‘micro architecture’,6 as my dissertation mentor. He was a wonderful person to talk with and I still have great appreciation for his way of looking at the world. He had a minimalistic approach to architecture, in that the ‘space in-between’ was more important for him than the structure. He wanted to only ‘touch the Earth lightly’ with his projects. In addition, he introduced me to the world of product and industrial design. My PhD resulted in a comparison and analysis of all inhabited human spacecraft and space stations in relation to human activities that later turned into the book Architecture for Astronauts.7 I evaluated those extraterrestrial habitats from a human activity point of view: The Apollo Spacecraft and Lunar Module, the Space Shuttle Orbiter, and the Space Stations Salyut, Skylab, Mir, as well as the International Space Station. To facilitate orientation and to ease comparison with architectural drawings and diagrams, each category was assigned a specific color. Design directions for each category concluded each chapter. Next to an overview of the architecture and configuration concerning the interior layout and a comparison of the spatial and time allocation of human activities, the main part of the book concentrated on the investigation of the relationship between the environment and its users. At that time, it was the first compendium that included comparable information of all inhabited spacecraft from an architectural and user point of view. For that, I have to thank the many astronauts and cosmonauts that I personally spoke to. Their unique input became very valuable, even trailblazing, and often contradicted some official views and revealed something new. The search for ‘what constitutes the space to live happily in (extraterrestrial) environments’ is continuing, and I am grateful to integrate my research with my work as an architect, on Earth as off Earth.

Towards a Habitability for Humanity This book is a real synergetic achievement towards designing living spaces for extraterrestrial environments, and this chapter tells you how it started. It started with the idea of writing a compendium on space habitability from the human point of

5 Fusing high-tech engineering with industrial-design methods, he and his research students in Munich have created an innovative range of revolutionary buildings in a broad variety of settings. From the Ski Haus (delivered to the Alps by helicopter and used by mountaineering and rescue teams) and Antarctic living modules to the Micro Compact home, a fully self-contained pre-fab home that fits into a 2.65 m2 cube, these structures are designed for their adaptability to our changing planet, lifestyles, and basic human needs. 6 See the book: Micro Architecture: Lightweight, Mobile and Ecological Buildings for the Future by Richard Horden, 2008, Thames & Hudson. 7 Häuplik-Meusburger, S. (2011). Architecture for Astronauts – An Activity based Approach. Springer Praxis Books, Vienna.

xii

Preface

view, and became elaborated, queried, and adapted with many discussions in both personal and online meetings. In the middle of the book process we decided to do a habitability survey and integrate it into a new chapter. The work process was intensive as we really worked in an interdisciplinary way. The questionnaire was developed together, discussing all the questions. The list of possible participants was gleaned from both of our extensive networks of acquaintances, friends, colleagues, collaborators, and all their contacts. Distributed by word of mouth and through emails and social media, we received responses from around the world from those that had spent time in isolated, confined environments both here on Earth and aloft. The scope of the response was an amazing testament to how interconnected we all are: dozens of professions, ages that ranged from 29 to 72, and participants from 15 different countries. Each gave us the benefit of their experience. It took our interdisciplinary collaboration to new heights. Instead of just two of us, we became many with their willingness to share. That set the tone of the entire book. We strove to elaborate on almost everything with personal quotes from others. Instead of confining ourselves to a preplanned outline, we followed the flow of emergent issues. We did not cover everything there is to cover . . . the book would have been five times longer. We may not have even covered all the really important things. As you will see, what is important frequently differs. But we hope that we have covered enough to excite discussion and further exploration among the worldwide community. Vienna, Austria Santa Fe, TX

Sandra Häuplik-Meusburger Sheryl Bishop

Acknowledgements

This is the most difficult chapter of all. There are so many people to acknowledge on our paths. Some gave of their personal experience and insights in analogue environments; others provided feedback on the chapters, pictures from their own missions, assistance in procuring permissions to use other photos, or suggestions for additional content. To all those who participated either through our survey or as unsung supporters, content experts, and hands-on editors, we thank you. Special thanks to Executive Editor Ramon Khanna and Editorial Assistant Rebecca Sauter for their invaluable guidance throughout the publication process; Donald C. Baker for his assistance with the design of our analogue experience survey; and Irina Panturu for updating and creating some of the graphics in this book. Deepest gratitude to Zita Barcza-Szabo for her hard work and long hours which contributed to the final editing phase prior to publication. To all that walked beside us on this journey, the list of acknowledgements below is not complete by any means. We would like to especially thank the following people (in alphabetical order) as well as those who chose to remain anonymous for taking part in our habitability survey.8 Clemente Balladares, Olga Bannova, Tristan Bassingthwaighte, Donald Barker, K Bhattacharyya, Kristian von Bengtson, Koray Bingol, Anne Burley, Doug Campbell, Bill Clancey, Jean-Francois Clervoy, William Daniels, Brian Dykas, Timothy Evans, Marinella Ferrino, Kyle Foster, Ron Franco, Rahul Goel, Ethan Good, Alice Gorman, Brand Griffin, Gernot Groemer, Patrick Harkness, Zan Hammerton, Chiemi Heil, Martha Henriques, Carmel Johnston, Jesper Jorgensen, Claudia Kessler, Taber MacCallum, Julia DeMarines, Kenny Mitchell, Ana Mosquera, Euan Monaghan, Brent Monseur, Guy Murphy, Nicolas Nelson, Carrie Paterson, Maria Antonietta Perino, Vladimir Pletser, Dumitru-Dorin Prunariu, Linda Roehrborn, Jackelynne Silva-Martinez, Jonna Ocampo, Shayan Shirshekar, Barret Schlegelmilch, Jack W. Stokes Jr., Eirik Sønneland, Peter Suedfeld, Daniel Surber,

8

The list is not complete as some of the interviewees preferred to answer anonymously. xiii

xiv

Acknowledgements

Rachel Tillman, James Titus, Miha Tursic, Truman Young, Rochelle Velho, and Cyprien Verseux. Special acknowledgement goes to James Wise and Georgi Petrov for their thorough review of the final manuscript. Finally, and perhaps most important, the authors are grateful to their families, especially their husbands and children, for their patience and emotional support while working on this book.

Contents

1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 The Unforgiving Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Defining Habitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Elements of Habitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 The Cost of (Not Including) Habitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Basic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

1 1 3 5 5 6 8

2

Habitability: From Place to Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Habitability as PLACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 From Exposure to Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 The Early Years: Moving from Pure Exposure to Experience Through Chamber Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Seeking Real Risk, Isolation and Confinement Through Operational Habitats in Isolated and/or Extreme Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

9 9 12

.

15

. .

18 21

. .

25 25

.

29

.

33

.

38

.

39

3

Habitability as SPACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 A Paradigm Shift Within Habitability Analogue Research . . . . . . 3.2 Identifying the ‘Relevant’ Habitability Issues for Extraterrestrial Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Experience Commonalities Among Extreme Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Move from Short Duration Missions to Long Duration Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Habitability Design as Countermeasure: Addressing the Negative Effects of ICEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xv

xvi

Contents

3.4

How to Evaluate and Prove Effectiveness: Operational Versus Research Simulation Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 The Challenge of Future Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

5

Review: Studies and Architecture of Habitability Missions in Mockups and Simulated Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Increasing Fidelity for Habitability Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 Early Missions: Arctic Expeditions with Fram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.1 Fram Architecture and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2.2 Habitability, Experiences and Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . 4.3 Habitability Missions in MOCKUPS and SIMULATED Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Biodome Missions: Closed Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1.1 Bios-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1.2 Biosphere 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 The IBMP Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Human Exploration Research Analogue (HERA) . . . . . . . 4.4 Summary of Habitability Missions in MOCKUPS and SIMULATED Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review: Studies and Architecture of Habitability Missions in In-Situ Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 Habitability Studies in Terrestrial In-Situ Environments . . . . . . . 5.1.1 Underwater Research Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1.1 Conshelf I–II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1.2 Tektite I–II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1.3 Aquarius and NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Antarctic Research Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2.1 Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2.2 Vostok Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.2.3 Concordia Research Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3 Other Terrestrial Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3.1 Haughton-Mars Project (HMP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3.2 Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station (FMARS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.3.3 Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS) . . . . . . . 5.1.3.4 HI-SEAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Habitability Studies in Extraterrestrial In-Situ Environments . . . . 5.2.1 Salyut Space Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.1.1 Facility Architecture and Design . . . . . . . . . . . .

40 44 45

. . . . .

51 51 53 54 56

. . . . . .

58 59 59 60 65 68

. .

70 73

. . . . .

77 77 78 78 78

. . . . . . .

82 85 86 90 92 95 95

. . . . . .

98 101 105 109 109 109

Contents

xvii

5.2.1.2

Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2 Skylab Space Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2.1 Facility Architecture and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.2.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3 Mir Space Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3.1 Facility Architecture and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.3.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4 Spacelab Module . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4.1 Facility Architecture and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.4.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.5 The International Space Station (ISS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.5.1 Facility Architecture and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2.5.2 Habitability Studies, Experiences and Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Summary of Habitability Studies in In-Situ Environments . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

. 110 . 112 . 112 . 114 . 115 . 115 . 117 . 117 . 118 . 118 . 121 . 122 . 122 . 124 . 128

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Life in Extreme Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 The Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.1 The Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2.2 The ICEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Individual Reflections on Habitability by the Inhabitants . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Experienced Challenges of the Living Space . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1.1 Controlled/Laboratory Simulation HABs (Fig. 6.4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1.2 In-Situ HABs (Fig. 6.5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1.3 SPACE HABs (Fig. 6.6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Experienced Positive Impacts of the Living Space . . . . . . . 6.3.2.1 Controlled/Laboratory Simulation HABs (Fig. 6.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2.2 In-Situ HABs (Fig. 6.8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2.3 SPACE HABs (Fig. 6.9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 How Future Extraterrestrial Habitats Might Differ (Fig. 6.10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4 The Three most Desirable Characteristics of Future Living Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.5 What Would You Take? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.6 Other Important Aspects Related to Habitability . . . . . . . . Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

131 131 133 133 134 135 135 135 139 144 146 146 149 152 154 162 169 174 177

xviii

7

Contents

Looking Forward: How to Convert a Tin Can into a Home: Exploring Solutions to Selected Dimensions of (Socio-Spatial) Habitability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 Introduction: Can We Build THE Perfect Habitat? . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 Designing for the ‘Best Fit’ Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.1 Ahh. . .Mission + Personality! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2.2 PLUS the EXPERIENCE of the Environment!! . . . . . . . . . 7.2.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 What You Take Is What You Have: Limited Space, Limited Resources and Limited People! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.1 The Question of ‘Adequate Volume’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.2 Limited Space ¼ Limited Availability! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.3 Microgravity ¼ New Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.4 Making the Most of all Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.5 Designing for a Limited Social Environment . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4 Camping Versus Residing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.1 Living in McMurdo Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.4.2 The Early Days of American Astronauts on Mir . . . . . . . . . 7.4.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 Looking out and Looking in: What Makes Us Feel Confined? . . . . 7.5.1 Crowdedness: Too Much, Too Close! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.1.1 Terrestrial Examples: Antarctica and Aquarius . . . 7.5.1.2 Orbital Examples: Mir and ISS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.2 A Lack of Stimuli: Monotony and Boredom . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.3 Stretching Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 Bringing our Own Green: Lack of Natural Elements . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.1 Fractal Geometry and Bionomic Design: Unraveling the Mystery of Greenery! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.2 Surrogate Views: The Potential of Individual Plant Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7 Space Roommates: Social Logic of Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7.1 When the Need for Privacy Becomes a Territorial Issue . . . 7.7.2 Zoning out Social Conflicts: When Little Things Become Big Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7.3 The Path to a Person’s Heart Is Through Their Stomach, Fine Manners Help . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7.4 Friendship, Intimacy and Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.7.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 Habitats for Humanity: Crafting Our Home Among the Stars . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

179 179 182 183 184 184 185 185 189 191 193 197 201 201 202 203 205 206 206 210 211 214 216 219 220 221 224 226 228 228 229 231 233 235 237 240

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

About the Authors

Sandra Häuplik-Meusburger PhD, is an architect and researcher specializing in compact habitability design solutions for extreme environments. She teaches at the Institute for Architecture and Design at the Vienna University of Technology and is appointed academic director of the course Space at the Science Academy in Lower Austria. Sandra uses cross-program comparison and analysis of inhabited isolated, confined, and extreme environments (ICEs) on Earth and space from a human perspective as a basis for the systematic assessment of existing and future living and working environments. She is corresponding member of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) and Vice-chair of the Space Architecture Technical Committee (SATC) of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Sandra has published several scientific papers and is author of the books Architecture for Astronauts (Springer, 2011) and Space Architecture Education for Engineers and Architects (Springer, 2016). Sheryl Bishop PhD, is a social psychologist and behavioral scientist who has applied her skills widely over her career. A Professor Emeritus at the University of Texas Medical Branch, she has taught in all four schools, Medicine, Nursing, Health Sciences, and the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences as well as served as faculty for the International Space University, Strasbourg, France. As an internationally recognized behavioral researcher in extreme environments, for the last 35 years Dr. Bishop has investigated human performance and group dynamics in teams in extreme, unusual environments, involving deep cavers, mountain climbers, desert survival groups, polar expeditioners, Antarctic winter-over groups, and various simulations of isolated, confined environments for space, including a number of missions at remote habitats. She has routinely presented her research at numerous scientific conferences, has over 60 publications (including contribution to NASA’s Historical Series on Psychology in Space), and over 50 scholarly presentations in both the medical and psychological fields. She is frequently sought out as a content expert by various media and has participated in several television documentaries on space and extreme environments by Discovery Channel, BBC, and 60 Minutes. xix

Chapter 1

Introduction

This chapter outlines why an extraterrestrial environment can be considered an Extreme Environment (EE) and how extreme environments entail demands that cannot be ignored or underestimated. Habitability considerations for such conditions are vastly impacted. A discussion of how the general envelope of human factors and habitability are affected by the unique characteristics of Isolated and Confined Extreme Environments (ICEs) is presented with an emphasis on the costs of not including habitability as a critical design component. Basic assumptions, the selection of examples used throughout the book and sources of information are identified.

1.1

The Unforgiving Environment

When we talk about the environment of ‘outer space’ or extraterrestrial environments, we refer to a natural environment that is beyond Earth or not from Earth. According to our current knowledge there is no extraterrestrial environment that is naturally livable for human beings as they lack critical resources (e.g., breathable air, water) or involve hostile environmental challenges (e.g., microgravity, high radiation). As such extraterrestrial environments are categorized as extreme environments (EE). Any environment can be described through their environmental or physical variables, such as temperature, lighting and specific characteristics, and also through their psychological and social variables. Psychologist Peter Suedfeld describes extreme (or unusual) environments in contrast to ‘normal environments’ along two dimensions: (1) degree of extremeness and (2) unusualness (Kring 2008, p. 212; Suedfeld and Mocellin 1987). As such, an extraterrestrial environment would be considered one of the most extreme environments with a high degree of extremeness (physical dangers and discomfort) and a high degree of unusualness as contrasted to a normal environment. Psychologists Manzey and Lorenz (1997) defined EEs as © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Häuplik-Meusburger, S. Bishop, Space Habitats and Habitability, Space and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69740-2_1

1

2

1 Introduction

“settings for which humans are not naturally suited and which demand complex processes of psychological and physiological adaptation”. EEs are commonly referred to as settings that possess extraordinary (extreme and unusual) physical, psychological, social (or interpersonal), and technological demands that require significant human adaptation for survival and performance (Suedfeld and Mocellin 1987; Manzey and Lorenz 1998; Kring 2008) (see Box 1.1). Box 1.1 Extreme Environments: Definition Jason Kring (Kring 2008, p. 212) has summarized the findings on EEs as follows: First, extreme environments possess extraordinary and unique features in three key areas: – Physical characteristics of the environment, – Interpersonal and social dynamic of individuals and groups living and working together in the environment, – Psychological variables that influence how an individual responds to the environment. Second, EEs require significant human adaptation in order for people to live and work in a manner that supports physical and psychological health, promotes successful task performance, and protects individuals from injury (Kring 2008, p. 212). The social, psychological and also spatial significance of living in an extraterrestrial environment has become more explicitly characterized by a further refinement of the term to incorporate the extraordinary isolation and confinement found in all extreme environments. Such environments are those in which “physical parameters [. . .] are [. . .] outside the optimal range for human survival [. . .] and which conditions [. . .] deviate seriously from the accustomed milieu of most [and further] involve physical remoteness [. . .] and a circumscribed spatial range” (Suedfeld and Steel 2000, p. 228). Human challenges of ICEs include: prolonged isolation and confinement, a hostile natural environment with limited mobility outside the habitat, high autonomy of the crew and habitat, life in a ‘microsociety’1 (and often in a multi-cultural setting), and a high probability of under-stimulation and boredom on long-duration missions, etc. Such conditions place demands not only on the type of persons who would be ‘best fit’ to inhabit such environments but also on the living spaces that must be crafted to support human habitation in such environments. Next to extraterrestrial habitats, polar and underwater habitats are examples of this building typology.

1

A small, self-contained community or milieu governed by its own conventions, rules, etc.

1.2 Defining Habitability

3

Table 1.1 Physical and social factors that have been reported to cause stress (Evans et al. 1988, p. 4; Connors et al. 1985; Cohen and Häuplik-Meusburger 2015) Physical stressors associated with ICEs Changes in pressure Extreme temperatures Unusual environmental hazards (meteorites, radiation, etc.) Physical threat to life in exterior environment Loss or alteration of time markers/ Zeitgeber Irregular or unnatural light cycles Noise and vibrations Limited available space Short focal distance stressed nearsightedness Poor ventilation Sterile and monotonous surroundings Restricted diet

Social and Psychological stressors associated with ICEs Isolation and confinement The feeling of being crowded The feeling of loneliness and separation from one’s normal social group Reduction of privacy The necessity of forced interaction with a small group of people Dependence on a limited community Disconnection from the natural world No separation of work and social life No family life Repetitive and often meaningless tasks Limited habitability (limited hygiene, sleep facilities, isolation from support systems)

One of the critical characteristics for living and working in those environments— and thus mission success—is the dependency on the habitat, its technological capability as well as the sociospatial framing. Inhabitants, who are exposed to remote and hostile environments, not only must overcome the challenges posed by the dangers and limitations imposed by the particular environment itself, but also experience significant distress from being confined indoors and isolated from civilization and social contact. Table 1.1 lists a selection of physical and social factors that can become stressors for the inhabitants. All of these factors and their associated stress responses must be taken into consideration when designing livable space or habitats for ICE environments. Yet, historically, such habitats have lacked all but the merest attention to such details with a focus primarily on surviving rather than thriving. This is changing and the built environment is slowly becoming an important factor to ensure both physical and psychological wellbeing.

1.2

Defining Habitability

“Early spacecraft had been designed to be operated, not lived in” (Compton and Benson 1983, p. 130). Mercury2 astronauts did not climb into the spacecraft, they put it on. At that time, spacecraft design was primarily functional. After the first space

Project Mercury was the first human spaceflight program of the United States and ran from 1958 to 1963.

2

4

1 Introduction

missions, when NASA and the Soviets were advancing their goals for long duration missions to prove that humans could live and work in space for extended periods, the habitable design of the interior became increasingly important. In 1963 Reed and White started their paper with the question “What does habitability mean?” (Reed and White 1963). Interestingly, their examination of the meaning directly led to the discussion of the interplaying factors “related to the man, his machine, his environment and the mission”. Kubis (1967, p. 399) stated a few years later that habitability “depends upon the purpose of man’s presence within that environment, the time he plans to remain, and the type of performance he expects to achieve”. Psychologist Dr. James Wise defined spatial habitability as: “Spatial habitability refers to the ways in which the volume and geometry of livable space affects human performance, wellbeing and behaviour” (Wise 1988, p. 6). Today, the term, habitability, is understood to be an umbrella term that describes the suitability and value of a built habitat for its inhabitants in a specific environment (cf. Häuplik-Meusburger 2011). It is a complex system related to the individual as well as society in relation to the (built) environment. Figure 1.1 highlights the interrelating factors between the inhabitant(s) and the lived-in environment.

Fig. 1.1 The Habitability system—Diagram showing the interrelating factors between the inhabitant as an individual or group with its built and natural environment. (credit: Häuplik-Meusburger)

1.3 The Cost of (Not Including) Habitability

1.2.1

5

Elements of Habitability

Components of the system (Fig. 1.1) include: The Setting: The physical environment in which human operated missions take place is life-threating and physically, psychologically and socially demanding. The longer the mission lasts the more strenuous it is psychologically for the individual crewmember, as well as for the whole crew. In addition, longer missions place more sophisticated technological demands on the habitat and associated technology and systems. Subcomponents include conditions of the actual environment, mission length, tasks, type of habitat, and others. The Individual: So far individuals for space missions come from a small spectrum of our society. They have been carefully selected based upon specific characteristics, based on either select-out (physical and/or psychological disabilities) or select-in criteria (knowledge, experience, personality, etc.). Subcomponents include physical and psychological condition, behavioral health, experience, and others. The Group or (Micro)society: In extraterrestrial habitats a small group of people are living together in a relatively small space. This is often referred to as a microsociety. Isolated from the normal social matrix on Earth, social relationships often become more intense and, thus, can produce interpersonal challenges for the whole group. Subcomponents include: crew composition, selection, gender, culture, and others. The Time: The length of the mission affects every component—the individual, the whole group—as well as the habitat and technical facilities. Subcomponents include: mission length, changes during the mission, and scheduling.

1.3

The Cost of (Not Including) Habitability

How much does it cost to include habitability into the design process? And how much will it cost NOT to include habitability into the design process? In the 1963 Manned Space Laboratory Conference, Celentano, Morelli and Freeman emphasized the importance of habitability with an excerpt on ‘Habitability problems aboard Navy vessels’ from 1891. “The physical condition of the men, when it comes to action or to conditions of war, is of greater moment than the . . . extra knots . . . for which we are asked to sacrifice so much”. Later in the same paper the author reminded us that “each generation of designers, in their zeal for getting the most with the least, and packing the greatest into the smallest (or lightest), frequently forgets the essential factors of habitability and needs to be reminded” (Celentano et al. 1963). Support and evidence for the need of integrating habitability can be found in every decade. Thomas M. Fraser suggested “that habitability can be considered as that equilibrium state, resulting from man-machine-environment-mission

6

1 Introduction

interactions which permits man to maintain physiological homeostasis, adequate performance, and psycho-social integrity” (Fraser 1968, p. V). Later Harrison (2010, p. 891) pointed out the relation between the benefits and costs. He stated that environmental stressors “magnify risk, undermine performance, and raise the human cost of occupancy”. For him, it is clear that “by minimizing environmental stressors” habitability “serves the interests of behavioral health”. Embedded into the discussion on human factors, habitability is a major factor in the design of any inhabited environment, including its facilities. However, in extraterrestrial and isolated and confined environments, habitability is critical for the physical and psychological wellbeing of the inhabitants as well as mission success. In extraterrestrial environments and most of the environments characterized as ICEs, the basic requirements of human existence can only be secured by an additional technical envelope, such as the habitat or a space suit. Isolated from the Earth, astronauts must live for long durations within a small and confined environment, completely dependent on mechanical and chemical life support systems. This building type must be subject to careful design, planning and construction that incorporate both elements for surviving as well as those for thriving. Habitability design integration is an important aspect when planning longduration missions. To date, given historical missions missions of short duration, it was seen as ‘nice to have’ but it becomes vital when mission length increases. As stated by Frances Mount (Mount 2002, p. 87): “The impact of a poorly designed switch or lack of stowage area is different for a mission of six months compared to a mission of one week.” The research into effective habitat design for human health and wellbeing in isolated, confined and extreme environments is still nascent and distributed across multiple disciplines. The recent intersection of several critical lines of research are beginning to frame multiple intriguing new approaches to implementing environmental design in ways that integrate ‘place and use demands’ as deliberative elements fostering restoration, wholeness and maximizes adaptation and response through evolutionarily honed cognitive processes. Paired with the power of new technological tools for delivering levels of realism that are increasingly difficult to distinguish from ‘reality’, habitation has expanded beyond the mere physical space we occupy into the perceived space around us. We hope this book will take that discussion and exploration beyond what has been addressed before into those brave new worlds of possibilities ahead of us.

1.4

Basic Assumptions

There are a number of basic assumptions related to future extraterrestrial missions that underlie the areas dealt with in this book. These assumptions will be discussed in detail in the different chapters of the book, but it is worthwhile to mention them now as an orientation to the rest of the book.

1.4 Basic Assumptions

7

Studies and Architecture of Habitability Missions Mockups and Simulated Facilities Biodomes - Bios-3 - Biosphere 2

IBMP

In-Situ Environments

HERA

Terrestrial

Extraterrestrial - Salyut - Skylab - Mir - Spacelab - ISS

Underwater

Antarctic

Other

- Conshelf I-II - Amundsen-Scott - HMP - Tektite I-II - Vostok - FMARS - NEEMO - Concordia - MDRS - HI-SEAS Colour code Sleep

Hygiene

Food

Work

Leisure

Fig. 1.2 Overview of habitability studies and relevant habitats that are introduced in Chaps. 4 and 5. A color code is used to make comparison of the plans and sections easier and comparable

Selection of examples. This book is a co-project combining the psychology of a person living in extreme environment with the socio-spatial dynamics of a group living in extreme environments. Examples are largely drawn from missions that involve living over a period of time in a habitat that serves as protection from the extreme environment (see Fig. 1.2). Expeditions, i.e., missions that involve constantly moving from one point to another with transient ‘camps’ along the way, are only mentioned when it is relevant to understand the context. Sources of Information. Reports and personal experiences from inhabitants have been one of the most important sources for both authors. They are used for describing the research topic and for the definition of preliminary relevant topics. Sources include written as well as oral material from interviews by and with inhabitants of extreme environment facilities. Furthermore, a number of relevant studies from the fields of space psychology, sociology, extreme environmental medicine, as well as personal reports from analogue simulations are referenced.

8

1 Introduction

References Celentano, J., Amorelli, D., & Freeman, G. (1963). Establishing a habitability index for space stations and planetary bases. Retrieved May 18, 2020, from https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10. 2514/6.1963-139 Cohen, M. M., & Häuplik-Meusburger, S. (2015). What do we give up and leave behind? ICES2015-56, 45th international conference on environmental systems, Bellevue, Washington, 12–16 July 2015. Compton, W. D., & Benson, C. D. (1983). Living and working in space, a history of Skylab. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Connors, M. M., Harrison, A. A., & Akins, F. R. (1985). Living aloft. Human requirements for extended spaceflight. Washington, DC: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Branch. Evans, G. W., Stokols, D., & Carrere, S. (1988). Human adaptation to isolated and confined environments: Preliminary findings of a seven month Antarctic winter-over human factors study. NASA contractor report NASA CR-177499. University of California, Irvine. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from http://www.spacearchitect.org/pubs/NASA-CR-177499.pdf Fraser, T. M. (1968). The intangibles of habitability during long duration space missions. Retrieved May 18, 2020, from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19680017230.pdf Harrison, A. A. (2010). Humanizing outer space: Architecture, habitability, and behavioral health. Acta Astronautica, 66(5–6), 890–896. Häuplik-Meusburger, S. (2011). Architecture for astronauts – An activity based approach. New York: Springer Praxis Books. Kring, J. (2008). Human performance in extreme environments. In S. F. Davis & W. Buskist (Eds.), 21st Century psychology – A reference handbook (pp. 210–219). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Kubis, J. F. (1967). Habitability: General principles and applications to space vehicles. In H. Bjurstedt (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Basic Environmental Problems of Man in Space. Vienna: Springer. Manzey, D., & Lorenz, B. (1997). Human performance during prolonged space flight. Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 1(2), 68. Manzey, D., & Lorenz, B. (1998). Mental performance during short-term and long-term spaceflight. Brain Research Reviews, 28(1–2), 215–221. Mount, F. E. (2002). Habitability: An evaluation. In H. W. Lane, R. L. Sauer, & D. L. Feeback (Eds.), Isolation: NASA experiments in closed-environment living: Advanced human life support enclosed system final report. American Astronautical Society: San Diego, CA. Reed, J. H., Jr., & White, S. C. (1963). Habitability in space stations. Retrieved July 1, 2020, from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R¼19630008464 Suedfeld, P., & Mocellin, J. S. (1987). The “sensed presence” in unusual environments Peter Suedfeld. Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 33–52. Suedfeld, P., & Steel, G. D. (2000). The environmental psychology of capsule habitats. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 227–253. Wise, J. (1988). The quantitative modelling of human spatial habitability. Ames Research Center, USA: NASA Contractor Report, 1988. 177501. Retrieved May 15, 2020, from https://core.ac. uk/download/pdf/42829942.pdf

Chapter 2

Habitability: From Place to Space

This chapter summarizes the evolution of the concept of ‘Habitability’ as it has been envisioned, approached and addressed within the context of extraterrestrial human habitation. It outlines the initial defining characteristics identified from research in terrestrial ICEs (Isolated, Confined and Extreme Environments), traces the evolution of concern with place (location characteristics) to habitation space (built environments) and summarizes the expansion of focus from individual living spaces to those encompassing whole communities that are driven by the demands of the extraterrestrial environment.

2.1

Habitability as PLACE

Today, there is no perfect analogue1 for extraterrestrial habitats. Although “a stay at [the Antarctic research station] Concordia has many similarities with a longduration spaceflight and to future exploration missions [...]” (ESA 2010), similarities and differences are not the same across different environments. Each isolated and confined environment (extraterrestrial orbital and planetary habitats, polar bases, simulators, etc.) has its own strengths as well as limitations as an analogue environment for the development of future extraterrestrial habitats. But none can be 100% directly compared with the other. Therefore, any investigation into what a habitat should be like for extraterrestrial locations will be, at best, an approximation. For example, even in analogues where conditions limit some critical resource like the availability of a breathable atmosphere (e.g., submarines or underwater habitats), all terrestrial analogues exist in a 1 g field (i.e., 1 gravity or Earth normal gravity). Thus, it will not be possible to ever simulate how a microgravity environment affects group

1 Analogue: “something that is similar to or can be used instead of something else” (Cambridge dictionary 2020).

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Häuplik-Meusburger, S. Bishop, Space Habitats and Habitability, Space and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69740-2_2

9

10

2 Habitability: From Place to Space

and individual functioning on Earth. Does that mean all analogues will be equally incapable of helping us determine how to build effective living spaces for off-earth locales? Or is every analogue so unique that there are no generalizable lessons learned that can be garnered from each? Despite the aforementioned caveats, the answers to both questions is a resounding ‘No’! As Peter Suedfeld, a noted space psychologist observed, “Analogues were neither completely invalid nor completely useless” (Suedfeld 1991). The history of space travel shows that much has been learned from a technological point of view. Life support systems, food systems and the development of new materials are only a few examples of how much has been achieved in the last 50 years. But, when it comes to living in space, knowledge transfer from one environment to the other can become tricky, if not dangerous, for mission success and people’s lives. Initially, the focus of early spacecraft (such as Mercury and Apollo programs) was on survivability in which engineering approaches were well equipped to deal with meeting requirements. Provisions of adequate hardware and software systems were primarily a highly specialized technological puzzle. When faced with the needs for the highly variable and, sometimes unpredictable, ‘wetware’2 (i.e., the human participants), the solutions could not be guided by a set of specifications, blueprints or testable processes. To the dismay of much of the engineering and human factors community, social scientists could not provide definitive and generic ‘design requirements’ to ensure human health and wellbeing. Thus, not only was the solution impossible to achieve, the nature of the ‘problem’ was similarly unknown. Yet, there undeniably was a problem! The journey to this realization was a long one. Before we could define and design an effective living envelope3 for ICEs, we had to understand the greater environment in which that habitat would be located and the demands and requirements of those inhabiting that place. The earliest efforts were directed at simply testing various elements of life support in any available extreme environment under the assumption that the same functionality would be experienced in the same way regardless of location or mission characteristics. The focus was on the demands the environment placed on the constructed structure with almost total disregard to how inhabitants would experience those structures. Just as environmental conditions modified and defined demand characteristics of terrestrial habitats (e.g., submarines require pressurized vessels, polar bases provisions for maintaining heating, equatorial provisions for maintaining cooling), so, too, will the environmental characteristics of extraterrestrial habits similarly define demand characteristics for survival. The more consistent the demand characteristics of place (see Table 2.1) are, logically the easier it should be to address the demand characteristics of the living space. One could argue that the lack of breathable atmosphere, presence of micro or zero-gravity, high radiation exposure, and absence of vegetation and other living forms that

2 Definition of wetware: the human brain or a human being considered especially with respect to human logical and computational capabilities (Merriam Webster, 2020). 3 Remember that in most ICE humans can only survive with a protecting envelope.

2.1 Habitability as PLACE

11

Table 2.1 Demands and impacts based upon the environment and the actual mission DEMANDS on habitation system Demands based upon environmental characteristics ≙ place characteristics Demands based upon Mission characteristics ≙ expanded place characteristics

IMPACTS on habitation system Life support system; restraints for working in microgravity; shelter in case of solar particle events or dust storms; greenhouse to grow food; Etc. Mission goals and tasks; flyby or landing; duration (short or long); Crewsize and composition; Etc.

ubiquitously define all extraterrestrial locations on the near horizon certainly constitute a consistent set of environmental characteristics. Using existing functional operational outpost base designs as templates, multiple simulation facilities have been constructed, situated in various challenging environments and put into service. Yet, habitats in the same location produced different outcomes with different crews. And somewhat different habitats in different environments produced similar results. It became painfully clear that the variable element was the human inhabitants. So, the focus shifted to finding the ‘right stuff’ personality that could effectively adapt to demands of the ICE. The breakthrough came when researchers trying to identify the ‘right stuff’ for astronaut crew selection realized that there was no one right stuff, but, rather, a ‘best fit’ personality for different mission profiles. Tagged the ‘select-in’ criteria (as opposed to the ‘select-out’ criteria for psychological pathology), research on personality and psychological functioning in crewmembers across various ICEs (Bishop et al. 1998; Bishop and Primeau 2001; Herring 1997; Kahn and Leon 1994; Kanas 1985; Leon 1991; Sandal et al. 1996; Morphew and Maclaren 1997) concluded that it was mission characteristics that were, in fact, the drivers for determining ‘best fitness’. Therefore, the ‘best fit’ crewmember could be identified by mission characteristics, e.g., nature of the tasks (daily achievement of specific goals versus station-keeping), risk (mutable or fixed) or duration (short vs. long). These same parameters, by extension, defined the livability demands that must be addressed in the ensuing habitat because these were the characteristics that impacted human perception and activities and, therefore, the experience of the habitat. Thus, the same facility and structure could be experienced very differently in a short duration, low risk, and task-driven mission profile compared to a long duration, high risk, in-situ residence mission profile. In addition to place characteristics, it is the successful match between mission generated adaptation needs and the experience attainable by the living envelope of the space about us that ultimately defines the success of a habitat. It was these emerging factors that helped reshape the approach to designing effective inhabitable space for extraterrestrial environments. Not only do different mission types with particular requirements and constraints result in different mission architecture and spacecraft design (cf. Larson and Pranke 1999), but they also result in different and more powerful habitation design.

12

2 Habitability: From Place to Space

2.2

From Exposure to Experience

One important fact, which has emerged during decades of research, is that in the study of capsule environments there are few main effect variables. Almost every outcome is due to an interaction among a host of physical and social environmental variables and personality factors. Thus, although we conceptually deconstruct the situation into particular sources of variance, we must remember that how people experience an environment is more important than the objective characteristics of the environment. (Suedfeld and Steel 2000, pp. 227–253)

The realization that place characteristics could be reorganized according to mission characteristics rather than environmental characteristics was a significant leap forward. It moved the focus from ‘What is special about each of these places?’ to ‘What needs do inhabitants in all these places have in common?’ The lessons learned (see Box 2.1) reflected several decades of emergent general findings emphasizing the importance of duration, true confinement and isolation and real risk that have substantially redefined how we approach developing effective living spaces for extraterrestrial habitats. Box 2.1 Lessons Learned from Analogue Research • Those exemplified by short term habitation durations, e.g., field expeditions such as the Arctic Mars Analogue Svalbard Expeditions (AMASE), annual NASA-funded expeditions that use various field sites on the Svalbard archipelago (Norway), or the two-week missions sponsored by the Mars Society’s Mars Desert Research Station in Utah, do not provide for true emergence of societal norms. How groups define the usability of space reflects both function and psychosocial needs of the individual and group. A place for eating is functional but if it also serves as a place for bonding and fellowship, it becomes supportive of greater wellbeing. The former can be predefined; the latter is emergent and needs time for development. • Locations that do not enforce long-term true confinement or isolation also lack critical developmental pressures, e.g., space shuttle missions, remote teams on oil rigs or oil cargo transports. Transitional places are temporary spaces and provoke a very different spectrum of human tolerance and adaptation than those that represent long-term inhabitation. • Analogues in which real risk is lacking do not engender the same social dynamics as one in which interdependencies represent real resources for personal and group safety. The criticality of a built environment’s characteristics affects human attitudes and values towards that structure. For example, a leak in an underwater habitat is of far more significance than a leak in the roof in Antarctica. The latter may represent a significant threat but it isn’t the immediate threat of the former. Perceptions of enclosure are directly proportional to the degree of threat the external environment poses to the habitat.

2.2 From Exposure to Experience

13

A defining thread across these critical mission characteristics is the emphasis on perceived or experienced impact on inhabitants. It is human perception of risk, confinement, isolation, and duration that defines the utility and critical features of inhabitable space. Analogues where these factors are compromised or lacking pose lesser utility in what that location can teach us about human behavior and the role of effective inhabitable structure in human adaptation. It is important to recognize that a physically superior location (e.g., Antarctica) may be significantly less useful if certain parameters are missing or undermined. For instance, perception of the mutability of consequences has persistently been identified as critical. Rescue from a habitat situated on the campus of a university or space agency is taken as a given whereas the same need from Antarctica during the winter or the International Space Station is fraught with greater uncertainty and risk. And rescue from a lunar base or from Mars will be even greater still. The greater the perceived risk, the greater will be the sense of confinement and isolation. The greater the perceived isolation, the greater the challenges placed upon the crew and the habitat. This was confirmed by the reports of the first American astronauts on the Mir space station. Thagard, Blaha and Linenger had severe feelings of isolation and problems with adaption to the physical and, in particular, the social environment (see Sect. 7.4.2). With the realization that it was the interaction between place characteristics and mission characteristics that shaped the demands upon human inhabitants, the focus shifted from designing for the unique environmental characteristics to the unique needs of inhabitants situated in extreme environments by exploring factors that made a difference in how the same habitat could be experienced across different mission parameters and different environments. Experience is shaped by the space that surrounds us, is presented to us, and elicits a response from us. In short, experience is malleable and can be deliberatively directed, for good or ill. What any successful habitat must achieve is the experience of safety, support and sustainment. Given the disparate characteristics of available analogue environments and of those proposed extraterrestrial habitats on the near horizon (L5, Lunar, Mars), Suedfeld (1991) proposed five key principles to improve the efficacy of research in analogue environments to inform us as to how to build for extraterrestrial habitats (see Table 2.2). This focus on how inhabitants experienced the built environment designated for ICEs was a fundamental shift in perspective. We have to remember that the approach to early spaceflight was purely functional. There were, for example, no reports of Table 2.2 Key principles to improve the efficacy of research in analogue environments (Suedfeld 1991) Principles Principle 1: Researchers should think in terms of experiences within environments rather than of environmental characteristics; Principle 2: Researchers should study differences and similarities between experiences, which are not the same as those between environments; Principle 3: Analogies should be based on similarities of experience, not necessarily of environment; Principle 4: Research should look at systematic links between personality factors and experience; and Principle 5: Experience is continuous and integrated.

14

2 Habitability: From Place to Space

Fig. 2.1 (a) Shannon Lucid aboard Mir space station. Launched aboard the STS-76, the third Shuttle/Mir docking mission, in March 1996, to join the Mir crew in the orbiting laboratory. Astronaut Lucid returned to Earth aboard STS-79 in September 1996. At the time, Lucid set the U.S. record for the longest stay in space of 188 days (Credit: NASA). (b) Interior of the International Space Station. A view of the European Space Agency Columbus Lab Module, looking across into the Japanese Experiment Module, 2018 (Credit: NASA)

space sickness from Mercury and Gemini astronauts. But with Apollo and Skylab, it went up to 50% (Crampton 1990). In the case of cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova,4 her report of motion sickness was directly attributed to her being a woman as women had been seen as more vulnerable, thus being more likely to experience space motion sickness and men more likely to experience re-entry sickness upon return to Earth. Heretofore, a largely functional engineering approach dominated in which the essential features were providing for survivability (air, water, power, waste management, food). Hence, the interiors were, and often still are, characterized by congested, highly complex environments exposing mechanical, electrical and logistical hardware to provide easy access for repairs with no ‘wasted’ resources dedicated to psychological functioning (see Fig. 2.1a, b). Terrestrial analogues were no better. Early evaluations for astronaut selection drew upon a history of sensory deprivation research initially begun by the military throughout the 1950s and 1960s to address performance concerns about two-person crews confined to armored vehicles for “long durations” and continued most notably through the series of studies conducted by Zubek (1969). Initially, it was believed that space would represent a significant loss of normal sensory stimulation due to isolation from people, reduction in physical stimulation, and restricted mobility. Thus, sensory deprivation chambers were argued to be good analogues for astronauts (Flaherty 1961). Selection procedures, therefore, included stints in dark, small, enclosed spaces for several hours to observe how potential astronauts handled the confinement and loss of perceptual cues. As American Astronaut, Dr. Bernard Harris, the first African American to walk in space, recounts, “They put me in this little box where I couldn’t move or see or hear anything. As I recall, I fell asleep after

“Валентина Терешкова: чьей воле покорялась женщина, покорившая космос” [Valentina Tereshkova: the Woman who Conquered Space]. RIA Novosti (in Russian). 16 June 2006. Retrieved 3 April 2016.

4

2.2 From Exposure to Experience

15

a while until the test ended” (Harris 1995–96).5 However, even as successful orbital flights and subsequent station experience disproved the sensory deprivation model, the employment of utilitarian, austere functional built environments continued as the templates for subsequent ICE human habitats both on- and off-earth.

2.2.1

The Early Years: Moving from Pure Exposure to Experience Through Chamber Research

The first systematic attempts to investigate psychological adaptation to isolation and confinement in simulated confined environments, were conducted in sensory deprivation chambers beginning in the 1950’s and continuing throughout the 1960s and early 1970s. Chamber research, as it was to become known, eventually encompassed a variety of artificial, constructed environments whose raison d’être was control over all factors not specifically under study. For instance, volunteers were frequently simply confined in closed rooms for several days, subjecting them to sleep deprivation and/or various levels of task demands by having them complete repetitive research tasks to evaluate various aspects of performance decrements (Haythorn and Altman 1966; Altman 1973). Early ground-based chamber studies were conducted by NASA to prepare for upcoming missions and test systems, equipment and procedures. Table 2.3 lists a number of early-ground based simulations that already included some issues related to the actual habitat. It was during one of those simulations the 1967 accidental deaths of the Apollo 1 crew occurred because the cabin was pressurized with pure oxygen and the door could not be opened from the outside (Box 2.2). The atmosphere was changed for the second test to 60% oxygen and 40% nitrogen at 15 psi (Lange et al. 2002). Those simulations were conducted in an environment as close to the actual mission parameters as possible and the astronauts wore biomedical vests. The test of the ‘acceptability’ of the habitat lead to a number of improvements, such as the re-design of the Apollo space suits and the urine system of Skylab, because it was discovered to be too small. Box 2.2 Apollo 1: The Mission that Never Flew The first manned mission towards the Moon—an Earth-orbiting mission—was planned to launch on February 21, 1967. A few weeks before, the whole crew was killed by a cabin fire during a launch rehearsal test at Cape Kennedy. The mission was initially designated AS-204 but was renamed to Apollo 1 in honor of the crew: Virgil (Gus) Grissom (Command Pilot), Ed White (Senior Pilot), (continued)

5

B. Harris, personal communication, thesis committee member (1995–1996).

16

2 Habitability: From Place to Space

Box 2.2 (continued) and Roger B. Chaffee (Pilot). It would take another 18 months, and extensive redesigns, before another astronaut would enter a rocket. Eventually, the first Apollo mission to get to space was Apollo 7 on October, 11 in 1968. Further Reading: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/apollo-1.

Table 2.3 Examples of early ground-based chamber studies (Lange et al. 2002; Wright and Jaques 2002) Early groundbased simulations MOLAB (1965), General Motors for NASA Apollo Ground Based Tests (1968)

Regenerative Life Support Study by NASA Langley Research Center (1970)

The Skylab medical experiments altitude test (SMEAT) (1970s)

Relevant habitability issues Proved astronauts could stay in it for 18 days; Acceptability of cabin and suit

Objective Extended lunar mission manned vehicle Manned vacuum chamber tests to prepare to fly to the moon 60 and 90-day manned test of regenerative life support system

Crew 2 males 3 males

Architecture Pressurized rover CSM with 310 ft3 (8.8 m3) of pressurized volume

Facility US geological survey Johnson Space Center, on two Apollo command/service modules (CSMs)

4 males

McDonnell Douglas astronautics company, Huntington Beach, CA

The acceptability of the habitat, crew training evaluations, and computer assistance scheduling were evaluated

56-day simulation of a Skylab mission with “full-up dress rehearsal”

3 males

Chamber was 12 ft. (3.6 m) in diameter and 40 ft. (12.2 m) long, with 4.100 ft3 (116 m3), a 160 ft3 (4.5 m3) airlock, and 2 smaller airlocks which were 18 in (0.46 m) in diameter, 10 psi Two-floor habitat with 20 ft. diameter with similar systems as Skylab (collapsible shower, water and waste management)

Johnson Space Center, NASA

Tests of the urine system demonstrated specific problems, such as being too small, resulting in redesign. Life sciences included lower body negative pressure, oral health, habitability/crew quarters, and crew training

2.2 From Exposure to Experience

17

Later, specially constructed confinement laboratories (see Chap. 4), housed small groups of three to six individuals in programmed environments for weeks to months of continuous residence to address a variety of space/science related human bio-behavioral issues concerning group dynamics (e.g., cohesion, motivation, effects of joining and leaving established groups), performance and work productivity, communication patterns, team cooperation, and social habitability factors. Other types of chambers have been utilized to evaluate various countermeasures, especially for stress and anxiety provoked by physiological stressors expected to be present in the space environment. For instance, in addition to their Lunar Palace simulation habitat, Chinese behavioral scientists were the latest to employ the use of centrifuge training to test the efficacy of guided imagery to reduce anxiety, heart rates and heart rate variability (Jing et al. 2011). Critics of this chamber facility approach point out that such environments constitute confinement but not necessarily isolation. The stress of isolation is far more complex than that of confinement and involves a psychological dimension of separateness that may not be inherent in artificial chamber studies. “Isolation [. . .] refers to situations in which even that level of social contact and support is lost in highly restrictive settings where inmates have little or no contact with others” (Clayton 2012, p. 320). The epitome example of chamber research may be the series of five hyperbaricchamber studies, dubbed the MARS 500 (see also Sect. 4.3.2), a cooperative project between ESA and the Russian Institute for Biomedical Problems (IBMP), utilizing their facilities in Russia, and investigating psychosocial functioning, in which groups were confined for periods lasting from 28 to 520 days (Sandal et al. 1995; Sandal 2004). Full mission protocols specifying all medical, technical, and operational parameters approximating expected living conditions of astronauts on a space station (and surface habitat) were used. The studies were intended to evaluate the efficacy of various psychosocial monitoring and assessment techniques for implementation on real space missions, as well as to investigate persistent occurrences of communication and interaction breakdowns between on-orbit teams and Mission Control anecdotally reported from space (Kanas et al. 2000; Sandal et al. 1995; Gushin et al. 1996). Such simulation missions have also provided opportunities to learn from mission failures. During an earlier long simulation mission also conducted at IBMP in 1999 (SFINCSS’99) (Sandal 2004), then the longest mission to date, a crew meltdown occurred. Too many New Year’s Eve vodka shots precipitated an incident involving unwanted sexual advances between one of the resident long duration male crew members and an international female team member on the shorter duration ‘visiting’ crew. This provoked a fistfight between male members. The fracas provoked reactions internally and across involved agencies as well as publicly that resulted in the two crews being physically isolated from each other for a period and one international team member leaving the project mid-mission. A mediation team was brought in to reconcile the teams and although the remaining crew members stayed and finished the mission, it was undeniable that the escape ‘solution’ or face-to-face mediation approach would not have been available in a real extraterrestrial mission (see Box 2.3). Subsequent mission design took special note of the contributing

18

2 Habitability: From Place to Space

factors involving different cultural attitudes, agency policies, crew norms and operational stresses, and sought to mitigate these. The Mars 500 simulations in particular were focused on evaluating how successful those mitigation strategies were. Box 2.3 When Simulation Study Conditions Become a Threat. . . The IBMP SFINCSS mission reported here was one we studied in my Lunar Base study. We were shocked to learn that the female visiting participant in the IBMP had slept with a knife she’d stolen from the mess in order to protect herself at night! My best recollection of the reported circumstances is that this was a simulation mission where some new crew members joined up half way through, and the female participant was in that new group. The guy who hit very hard on her was a Russian fellow who was a member of the long, full term mission crew. This obvious problem was glossed over as a (1) Cross-Cultural misunderstanding, and (2) the kind of a conflict where new crew members are suddenly introduced to an established group, disrupting a situation where interpersonal dynamics are already sorted out. It didn’t come out until the post mission debriefings that she had stolen the kitchen knife and slept with it, indicating how threatened she felt.6 I see so many parallels in this case to reports we read all the time about sexual harassment of women military members, and it’s a pretty strong indicator that ‘military organization and discipline’ is not good enough to stop it from happening. Lesson: We’re not going to avoid such things by either (a) individual crew member selections, especially with cross-cultural crews, or (2) strict established rank and reporting hierarchies.

Personal communications, Jim Wise, 2021. A number of opportunities and advances came from these studies, e.g., evaluating the efficacy of communication training for space teams or the opportunity to examine factors involved in an unplanned meltdown between crews precipitated by differences in cultural attitudes and norms about genders, authority, and control (Sandal 2004). However, skepticism regarding the verisimilitude of studies in which discontented members can simply quit has continued to raise real concerns as to how generalizable the findings from chamber studies are to extraterrestrial missions.

2.2.2

Seeking Real Risk, Isolation and Confinement Through Operational Habitats in Isolated and/or Extreme Environments

From chamber studies situated in agency or university campuses, the next extension was to study teams in real operational environments. The emphasis was largely on 6

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nationa/canadians-harrassment-complaint-scorned/arti cle25458615/.

2.2 From Exposure to Experience

19

investigating small group dynamics and human performance in habitats like the Antarctic bases (e.g., McMurdo, Troll Station, Concordia, South Pole) (see also Chap. 5) as well as expeditions conducted in various challenging environments, e.g., treks to the poles, climbing mountains, crossing deserts. Inarguably, Antarctica provides the best terrestrial analogue for extraterrestrial habitation studies (see also interview with Alexander Kumar in Box 3.6 and 5.2). Not only is the environment inimical to human survival, the duration of environmentally enforced isolation and confinement (~9 months) is the most extreme on Earth. Because of this fact, while there are other polar bases in the Arctic and subarctic, the bulk of sustained long duration psychological research has been conducted in Antarctica (Lilburne 2005; Sandal et al. 2018). While the exact number of permanent stations (those occupied year-round) throughout the Antarctic and sub-Antarctic regions varies depending on national funding, base conditions, and political situations, the count has fluctuated between 30 and 70, operated by the 48 signatory nations to the Antarctic Treaty, with populations running from 4 to 1100 men and women in the summer to 4 to 250 during the winter months.7 The base populations vary from mixed-gendered crews to male-only crews, from intact families (Chile) to unattached singletons, for assignments that last from a few months to 3 years. The first systematic psychological study of 85 men wintering over in Antarctica was conducted in 1958 by C. S. Mullin, H. Connery, and F. Wouters, after the 1956–57 International Geophysical Year (IGY) produced the first permanent bases in Antarctica (Mullin et al. 1958). As with the majority of psychological and medical research in various polar habitats through the 1980s, the focus was on the physiological changes evidenced in winter-over adaptation. Mullin et al.’s (1958) study was the first of many to identify the Antarctic fugue state later dubbed the “bigeye,”8 and most recently referred to as psychological hibernation (Sandal et al. 2018), characterized by pronounced absent-mindedness, wandering of attention, and deterioration in situational awareness that surfaced after only a few months in isolation. Similarly, later studies addressing psychosocial factors tended to focus on the negative or pathological problems of psychological adjustment to Antarctic isolation and confinement, with persistent findings of depression, hostility, sleep disturbance, and impaired cognition, which quickly came to be classified as the “winter-over syndrome” (Gunderson 1973, 1974; Strange and Klein 1974). However, it has not all been negative. Sprinkled among Antarctic research have been findings that also report positive, and even salutogenic aspects of the winter-over experience in which winter-overers have reported enhanced self-growth, positive impacts to careers, and opportunities for reflection and self-improvement (Mullin

7

For more information on Polar Bases go to: (https://www.coolantarctica.com/Community/ antarctic_bases.php). 8 Another term for insomnia due to the lengths of the days and nights in the polar regions (cf. Stephenson 2009, p. 113).

20

2 Habitability: From Place to Space

1960; Taylor and Shurley 1971; Wilson 1965; Palinkas 1986; Oliver 1991; Nielsen and Vollers 2001; Suedfeld 2005). The emergence of both positive and negative effects on inhabitants of ICEs was illuminated by one of Antarctica’s most prolific researchers, Dr. Larry Palinkas, in his analysis of 1100 Americans who wintered over between 1963 and 2003, representing over four decades of research in Antarctica. From this extensive meta-analysis, he proposed four distinct characteristics of psychosocial adaptation to isolation, confinement, and the extreme environment experienced in Antarctica (Box 2.4). Box 2.4 Characteristics of Psychosocial Adaption to Isolation, Confinement, and the Extreme Environment (Palinkas 2003) 1. Adaptation follows a seasonal or cyclical pattern that seems to be associated with the altered diurnal cycle and psychological segmentation of the mission. 2. Adaptation is highly situational. Because of unique features of the station’s social and physical environment and the lack of resources typically used to cope, baseline psychological measures are not as good predictors of depressed mood and performance evaluations as are concurrent psychological measures. 3. Adaptation is social. The structure of the group directly impacts individual wellbeing. Crews with clique structures report significantly more depression, anxiety, anger, fatigue, and confusion than crews with core-periphery structures. 4. Adaptation can also be “salutogenic,” i.e., having a positive effect for individuals seeking challenging experiences in extreme environments.

In his analysis, Palinkas found evidence that the winter-over experience was associated with reduced subsequent rates of hospital admissions when participants returned home. He and others have speculated that the experience of adapting to the isolation and confinement, in general, improved an individual’s self-efficacy and self-reliance and engendered coping skills that they used in other areas of life to buffer subsequent stress and resultant illnesses (Palinkas 2003; Suedfeld 2005). In 2006, Sandal et al. conducted an extensive review of the literature on psychosocial adaptation by a variety of groups in extreme environments including polar work groups, expedition teams, Antarctic bases, simulation, and space crews (Sandal et al. 2006). The comparison across both simulation and operational mission profiles and polar groups covering a wide spectrum of mission structures and goals dramatically highlighted critical differences regarding crucial mission characteristics, especially those involving tasks and goals as well as short and long duration that clearly identified habitation characteristics as different from expedition characteristics. Applying the emerging framework of select-in personality characteristics for crew members, findings reinforced the realization that there was a distinct difference

References

21

in individuals who were ‘best fit’ for expeditionary needs (i.e., short duration, high task focused, clearly defined milestones, specific team roles, and recognizable performance metrics) compared to those that were ‘best fit’ for missions in which long duration habitation demands (e.g., high interpersonal skills, autonomy, selfreliance, flexibility, tolerance for ambiguity, monotony and boredom) would be in play. That insight, subsequently, propelled the momentum to explicitly look at the habitation fit to the experience driven needs of those living in ICEs, completing the journey from the focus on pure exposure to experience.

References Altman, I. (1973). An ecological approach to the functioning of isolated and confined groups. In J. Rasmussen (Ed.), Man in isolation and confinement (pp. 241–270). Chicago: Aldine. Bishop, S., Hilliard, P., D’aunno, D., Harris, B, Jones, J., Rossum, A. and Stanford. (1998) Biobehavioral Life Support Issues for Living and Working in Space, The Third International Conference on Life Support and Biosphere Science, January 11–15, Lake Buena Vista, Florida. Bishop, S. L., & Primeau, L. (2001). Assessment of group dynamics, psychological and physiological parameters during polar winter-over. In Proceedings for the Human Systems Conference, Nassau Bay, Texas, June 20–22 2001. Clayton, S. D. (2012). The Oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology. New York: Oxford Press. Cool Antarctica. Antarctic stations – Bases – Currently occupied. Retrieved from https://www. coolantarctica.com/Community/antarctic_bases.php Crampton, G. H. (1990). Motion and space sickness. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. European Space Agency (ESA). (2010). Concordia calling. Retrieved 1 July 2020, from https:// phys.org/news/2010-01-concordia.html Flaherty, B. E. (Ed.). (1961). Psychophysiological aspects of space flight. New York: Columbia University Press. Gunderson, E. K. E. (1973). Individual behavior in confined or isolated groups. In J. Rasmussen (Ed.), Man in isolation and confinement (pp. 145–166). Chicago: Aldine. Gunderson, E. K. E. (1974). Psychological studies in Antarctica. In E. K. E. Gunderson (Ed.), Human adaptability to Antarctic conditions (pp. 115–131). Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union. Gushin, V. I., Kolintchenko, V. A., Efimov, V. A., & Davies, C. (1996). Psychological evaluation and support during EXEMSI. In S. Bonting (Ed.), Advances in space biology and medicine (pp. 283–295). London: JAI Press. Haythorn, W., & Altman, I. (1966). Personality factors in isolated environments. In M. Trumbull (Ed.), Psychological stress: Issues in research (pp. 363–386). New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts. Herring, L. (1997). Astronaut draws attention to psychology, communication. The Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 2(1), 42–47. Jing, X., Liu, F., Wu, B., Miao, D., et al. (2011). Guided imagery, anxiety, heart rate, and heart rate variability during centrifuge training. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 82(2), 92–96. Kahn, P. M., & Leon, G. R. (1994). Group climate and individual functioning in an all-women Antarctic expedition team. Environment and Behavior, 2(5), 669–697. Kanas, N. (1985). Psychosocial factors affecting simulated and actual space missions. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 56, 806–811.

22

2 Habitability: From Place to Space

Kanas, N., Salnitskiy, V., Grund, E. M., et al. (2000). Social and cultural issues during shuttle/Mir space missions. Acta Astronautica, 47(2–9), 647–655. Lange, H. W., Sauer, R. L., Feeback, D. L., & American Astronautical society (AAS) (Eds.). (2002). Isolation. NASA experiments in closed-environment living. Advanced human life support enclosed system. San Diego, CA: Univelt Inc. Larson, W. J., & Pranke, L. K. (1999). Human spaceflight: Mission analysis and design (space technology series). New York: McGraw-Hill. Leon, G. R. (1991). Individual and group process characteristics of polar expedition teams. Environment and Behavior, 23(6), 723–748. Lilburne, L. (2005). Shrinks on ice: A review of psychosocial research in Antarctica. Graduate certificate in Antarctic studies. Retrieved 1 July 2020, from https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/ handle/10092/13978/Lilburne_L_Lit.Review.pdf?sequence¼1 accessed 5/22/2020 Morphew, M. E., & Maclaren, S. (1997). Blaha suggests need for future research on the effects of isolation and confinement. Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 2(1), 52–53. Mullin, C. S. (1960). Some psychological aspects of isolated Antarctic living. American Journal of Psychiatry, 117, 323–325. Mullin, C. S., Connery, H., & Wouters, F. (1958). A psychological-psychiatric study of an IGY Station in Antarctica. Report prepared for the U.S. Navy, Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Neuropsychiatric Division. Nielsen, J., & Vollers, M. (2001). Ice bound: A Doctor’s incredible battle for survival at the south pole. New York: Hyperion. Oliver, D. (1991). Psychological effects of isolation and confinement of a Winter-over Group at McMurdo Station, Antarctica. In A. A. Harrison, Y. A. Clearwater, & C. P. McKay (Eds.), From Antarctica to outer space: Life in isolation and confinement (pp. 217–228). New York: Springer. Palinkas, L. A. (1986). Health and performance of Antarctic winter-over personnel: A follow-up study. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 57(10, sect 1), 954–959. Palinkas, L. A. (2003). On the ICE: Individual and Group Adaptation in Antarctica. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/bec/papers/Palinkas_On_The_Ice.pdf Sandal, G. M. (2004). Culture and crew tension during an international Space Station simulation: Results from SFINCSS’99. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 75(7, section 2, Suppl), C44–C51. Sandal, G. M., Vaernes, R., Ursin, H., et al. (1995). Interpersonal relations during simulated space missions. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 66(7), 617–624. Sandal, G. M., Vaernes, R., Bergan, P. T., Warncke, M., Ursin, H., et al. (1996). Psychological reactions during polar expeditions and isolation in hyperbaric chambers. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 67(3), 227–234. Sandal, G. M., Leon, G. R., & Palinkas, L. (2006). Human challenges in polar and space environments. Review Environmental Science and Biotechnology, 5, 281–296. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11157-006-9000-8. Sandal, G. M., van deVijver, F. J. R., & Smith, N. (2018). Psychological hibernation in Antarctica. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02235 Stephenson, J. (2009). Crevasse roulette – The first trans-Antarctic crossing 1957–58. Kenthurst: Rosenberg, National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication. Strange, R., & Klein, W. (1974). Emotional and social adjustment of recent U.S. winter-over parties in isolated Antarctic Station. In O. G. Edholm & E. K. E. Gunderson (Eds.), Polar human biology: The Proceedings of the SCAR/IUPS/IUBS Symposium on Human Biology and Medicine in the Antarctic (p. 410). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publications. Suedfeld, P. (1991). Groups in isolation and confinement: Environments and experiences. In A. A. Harrison, Y. A. Clearwater, & C. P. McKay (Eds.), From Antarctica to Outer Space: Life in isolation and confinement (pp. 135–146). New York: Springer.

References

23

Suedfeld, P. (2005). Invulnerability, coping, salutogenesis, integration: Four phases of space psychology. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 76(6 Suppl), B61–B73. Suedfeld, P., & Steel, G. D. (2000). The environmental psychology of capsule habitats. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 227–253. Taylor, A. J. W., & Shurley, J. T. (1971). Some Antarctic troglodytes. International Review of Applied Psychology, 20(2), 143–148. Wilson, O. (1965). Human adaptation to life in Antarctica. In J. Van Meigheim, P. van Oue, & J. Schell (Eds.), Biogeography and ecology in Antarctica, Monographiae Biologicae (Vol. 15, pp. 690–672). The Hague: W. Junk. Wright, M., & Jaques, B. (2002). A brief history of the lunar roving vehicle. Retrieved 2020, from https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/MSFC-LRV.pdf Zubek, J. P. (1969). Sensory deprivation: Fifteen years of research. New York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts.

Chapter 3

Habitability as SPACE

This chapter describes an Integrated Habitability Model of psychological, physiological, sociocultural and spatial habitability considerations. The meaning of the term ‘habitability’ is fraught with differences in usage, focus, application and definition. Historically, it has evolved from ‘habitability as location’1 to ‘habitability as living space’. In application, it is used by different professions with a variety of underlying foci. Thus, a multiplicity of concepts exists. As such, it provides challenges to systematic study as well as constructive dialogue. This chapter gives a systematic overview of the common features and differences of those concepts and argues for a robust inclusive model centered around inhabitant experience of space as a central core.

3.1

A Paradigm Shift Within Habitability Analogue Research

In Chap. 2, the evolution of habitability from a primary focus on provision for survivability in an extreme place to provision for living spaces that address human experience defined by both place and situation was outlined. The second major paradigm shift in the evolution of habitability as place to living space started when the architectural community began working closely with the human factors community in identifying the design characteristics of proposed long duration extraterrestrial habitats. Regardless of whether it was for the moon or Mars, in orbit or a long duration vehicle in transit, unique non-terrestrial environmental characteristics (e.g., microgravity) placed an immense challenge on habitation design. Although the immediate unavailability of a few resources (e.g., power, food, water) has been simulated in some terrestrial analogues, many other relevant design characteristics are uncommon 1 In astronomy and astrobiology the ‘habitable zone’ is a range of orbits around a star (e.g., our sun) within which a planetary surface can support liquid water given sufficient pressure.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Häuplik-Meusburger, S. Bishop, Space Habitats and Habitability, Space and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69740-2_3

25

26

3 Habitability as SPACE

Table 3.1 Relevant design characteristics for space architecture Typical environmental design characteristics in space architecture Not available on Earth Microgravity conditions high radiation exposure Environmental conditions requiring 100% life support Extreme temperature ranges within hours Threats of solar flares Vacuum Lack of breathable atmosphere Unmodifiable communication time lag Absence of all other lifeforms Complete separation from humanity Earth out of sight

Uncommon Reliance on a 100% closed loop environmental system (100% recyclable air, water and waste) Limited in-situ-available resources (e.g., power, food, water) Strictly enforced isolation and confinement Enforced acquaintances with a small group of people (microsociety) Inaccessibility of rescue/aid Inaccessibility of communication with outside Requirement for breathable atmosphere (e.g., underwater) Extreme temperatures

Table 3.2 Environmental issues affecting individual and group functioning Both individual and group functioning is impacted by – A reliance on technology for life support and performance; – Physical and social isolation and confinement; – High risk and associated cost of failure; – High physical/physiological, psychological, psychosocial, and cognitive demands; – Closed and dependent human-human, human-technology, and human-environment interfaces; – Requirements for team coordination, cooperation, and communication

or non-existent in terrestrial habitats (see Table 3.1). While the consistency of place demands (see also Table 2.1) and common mission characteristics would usually make designing effective habitats easier, having to incorporate demand characteristics that cannot be tested at all or otherwise with high difficulties provides immense challenges. Layered upon the difficulties in testing physical parameters, comes the psychological and sociocultural habitability considerations for extraterrestrial habitats which are similarly embedded within the complex matrix of the technological and architectural systems. As outlined in Chap. 2, habitability related issues have impacted significantly on human behavior and performance in most challenging environments, especially those characterized by isolation and confinement (Herring 1997; Manzey and Lorenz 1997; Manzey et al. 1995; Morphew and Maclaren 1997). Table 3.2 summarizes the main environmental issues affecting individual and group functioning found across all ICEs (Bishop 2006). In response to the extraordinary dependency on technology that is inherent in the construction of vehicles and habitats for extraterrestrial environments, a system was needed to categorize levels of technological capability for proposed studies and projects. In order to quantify and qualify risk, as well as capability, NASA and other space agencies established the system of Technological Readiness Levels (TRLs) in the 1970s for the testing of technological systems and elements (see Table 3.3). Since then a number of other methods or standards for the evaluation of the ‘maturity’ of systems have been developed. In order to address habitability

3.1 A Paradigm Shift Within Habitability Analogue Research

27

Table 3.3 Technology readiness level definitions TRL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Definition Basic principles observed and reported Technology concept and/or application formulated Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of concept Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space) System prototype demonstration in a space environment Actual system completed and “flight qualified” through test and demonstration (ground or space) Actual system “flight proven” through successful mission operations

Table 3.4 Habitation readiness levels and its relation to technology readiness levels (Connolly et al. 2006) Habitation systems research Habitation systems research (Level 1) Conceptual and functional feasibility of the technology (Level 1–4)

Demonstration of the technology (Level 5–6)

Testing of the technology and technology operations (Level 7–8)

Research and design levels Level 1: Human factors, crew systems, and life support research related to habitation systems Level 2: Habitation design and concepts, functional and task analysis Level 3: Internal configuration, functional definition and allocation, use of reduced scale models Level 4: Full-scale, low-fidelity mockup evaluations Level 5: Full-scale, high-fidelity mockups, human testing and occupancy evaluations Level 6: Habitat and deployment field testing Level 7: Pressurized habitat prototype testing Level 8: Actual systems completed and “flight qualified” through test and demonstration Level 9: Actual system “flight proven” through successful mission operations

Habitat subsystem technologies should have the following TRL Any TRL

Any TRL TRL 6 or higher

TRL 6 or higher

TRL 7 or higher TRL 8 or higher

requirements and design aspects in correlation to the TRLs, a group of NASA engineers2 developed the ‘Habitation Readiness Levels (HRL)’ (see Table 3.4) (Häuplik-Meusburger and Bannova 2016; Cohen 2012).

2

Jan Connolly, Kathy Daues, Robert Howard, and Larry Toups.

28

3 Habitability as SPACE

To date, predominantly only partial habitable living and working environments and subsystems in relevant environments have been tested on Earth. Full habitable living and working simulations, such as the Biosphere 2 missions (see Sect. 4.3.1), have been very rare. Most of the existing analogues address the TRLs 1–3 (up to the proof of concept without relation to an environment) and the TRLs 4–6 with a test in a ‘relevant’ or laboratory environment (e.g., simulated or operational ICEs). TRLs 7–9 are related to the testing (of prototypes) in the real extraterrestrial environment. There has yet to be a full-scale habitability mockup in a space environment at such a high TRL. The closest we have come is the Bigelow Expandable Module (BEAM), which is a prototype for a future deployable space habitat. It was attached as temporary experimental module to the International Space Station (ISS) in 2016 (see Fig. 3.1). The main purpose was to test its durability, but due to its engineering and performance assessment, it was decided to keep it in place until 2028. However, it is being used as storage module. Virtual simulators are a relatively new category. They have been mainly used by space agencies for astronaut training to prepare them for spacewalking (see Chap. 4). Thus, habitability studies at the highest TRLs have been studies of disparate components on various space stations and polar stations, both of which were constructed with purely functional, utilitarian survivability foci as discussed in

Fig. 3.1 Progression of expansion of the BEAM. After a seven-hour work session, NASA and Bigelow Aerospace were able to get BEAM expanded to full size on May 28, 2016 (credit: NASA TV)

3.2 Identifying the ‘Relevant’ Habitability Issues for Extraterrestrial. . .

29

Chap. 2. And therein lies the crux of the problem. Many habitability considerations are critical components for human missions but cannot be tested at the highest technological readiness level on Earth. Without an actual extraterrestrial testbed, space habitat designers are facing the challenge of (1) how to identify relevant habitability issues, (2) how to address negative effects with habitability countermeasures and eventually (3) how to evaluate and prove their effectiveness before building and living in the actual habitat.

3.2

Identifying the ‘Relevant’ Habitability Issues for Extraterrestrial Environments

A wealth of evidence exists underscoring the contribution of architecture and interior design as key factors in human health and wellbeing. Although habitability gained importance in the engineering world, its integration has always led to big arguments between the engineers and designers (Box 3.1). Box 3.1 Habitability Integration Design Arguments for the Skylab Space Station In 1968, Raymond Loewy, a world-renowned industrial designer was hired as a habitability consultant for the Saturn-Apollo and Skylab projects. George E. Mueller, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight at NASA Headquarters, seems to have been the driving force behind the inclusion of human factors in the design of the Skylab Space Station. Loewy suggested a number of improvements to the layout, such as the implementation of a wardroom, where the crew could eat and work together, the wardroom window, the dining table and the color design, amongst others. The design process was difficult. The engineers regarded crew quarter design as part of their responsibility and the test pilot astronauts who were reviewing the crew quarter concepts adopted the attitude that they cared even less about the design. It took some time until the improvements Loewy suggested were implemented (Compton and Benson 1983). One controversial subject was the provision of a window in the Skylab Saturn Workshop’s Wardroom area. The engineers argued it would weaken the structure, be too expensive, and take too long to develop. At first the window seemed not to be essential to mission success. Mueller asked Loewy for his opinion, on which he replied: “Not to have a window is unthinkable!” (Compton and Benson 1983, p. 137). Mueller answered: “Put in the window” (Compton and Benson 1983, p. 137) and the window, the wardroom and other changes were authorized. George Mueller later said of the early mockup: “Nobody could have lived in that thing for more than two months” (Compton and Benson 1983, p. 133). [As published in the book Architecture for Astronauts (HäuplikMeusburger 2011, p. 2)]

30

3 Habitability as SPACE

The implementation of the Skylab wardroom window (Fig. 3.2a) is a leading example of the importance of integrating habitability into the design. The window was appreciated by the astronauts, although the astronauts could not always see the Earth as ‘proposed’. In many images from the Skylab missions the wardroom window is actually closed (Fig. 3.2b). For astronaut Weitz (Weitz 2000), “the best windows” were in the MDA, because it had windows at a 90-degree angle and thus always provided an Earth view (cf. Häuplik-Meusburger 2011, p. 279). Although not all implementations were as useful as intended (Table 3.5), the Skylab station was probably the first in-space testbed for many activities to be performed in space.

Fig. 3.2 (a) Skylab 2 astronauts eat space food in wardroom of Skylab trainer. The three members of the prime crew of the first manned Skylab mission dine on specially prepared Skylab space food in the wardroom of the crew quarters of the Skylab Orbital Workshop (OWS) trainer during Skylab training at the Johnson Space Center. They are, left to right, Scientist-Astronaut Joseph P. Kerwin, science pilot; Astronaut Paul J. Weitz, pilot; and Astronaut Charles Conrad Jr., commander. (credit NASA). (b) Skylab 3 astronauts are shown eating in the Orbital Workshop (OWS) wardroom of the Skylab space station in Earth orbit. Astronaut Alan L. Bean (right), commander, illustrates eating under zerogravity conditions upside down. The two other crewmen are scientist-astronaut Owen K. Garriott (left), science pilot; and astronaut Jack R. Lousma, pilot. (credit: NASA) S73–31705 (1 Aug. 1973)

Table 3.5 Skylab the first testbed in Space—Things that worked and things that didn’t work— Examples (Häuplik-Meusburger 2011, NASA [Bull.10] 1974 Selection of design applications for the Skylab interior Crew found applications awkward to use or unnecessary Chair-type body restraints ‘Fireman’s pole’ for transition Special designed shoes with triangular plates fastened to the soles, to fit with metal triangular grid-work for walls and ceilings In general the interior had many different restraints for the astronauts to test: Velcro restraints, thigh restraints, shoe restraints, temporary restraints, etc. The deployable shower system Inadequate restraint system for food containers and utensils

Crew found design applications useful or pleasant The half circle dome for ‘free exercise’ Private sleep compartments Design of the wardroom table, also used for maintenance activities Food system and flatware Windows in the MDA for Earth watching

3.2 Identifying the ‘Relevant’ Habitability Issues for Extraterrestrial. . .

31

We should not forget that never before had the astronauts had the possibility to move in such a big volume in microgravity. ‘Things that didn’t work’ included a lot of 0 g restraints that were found not useful or awkward to use. For example, a ‘fireman’s pole’ was not used, and the special design shoes with triangular plates fastened to the soles in order to fit with the metal triangular grid-work of walls and ceilings were not found to be useful (see also Box 3.2). Box 3.2 Working Around a Poor Design In a 2017 interview3 Astronaut Edward Gibson who set an American record for living in space on Skylab of 84 days, related a story of having to make a repair on the Earth Observation antenna which wasn’t made to be repaired. The lack of restraints necessitated one astronaut having to wrap his legs and feet around a pole while another astronaut held onto the other to steady him while he attempted to unscrew a critical screw with an undersized screwdriver. Given the bulky suit gloves, this resulted in a job that should have been quickly accomplished taking an hour and a half of hard effort. Upon reentry, Gibson told of how his fingernails were purple from the effort to squeeze the small screwdriver Paradoxically, while readily acknowledging that living in an extraterrestrial environment could have negative effects and that inappropriate or faulty design could present a threat to the crew’s health and the overall mission (Box 3.3), broad application of interior design principles was largely ignored for habitats situated in extreme environments. Before interior design would be seriously considered, the nature of the actual negative effects had to be characterized and determined to be significant enough to warrant substantial changes in the design of proposed extraterrestrial vehicles and bases as well as those situated in terrestrial ICEs. To complicate matters, most of the research on human adaptation to ICEs4 or EEs5 has been focused on individual and group accommodation to the existing austere habitats rather than efforts to improve the habitats themselves. There are only a few examples where designers or architects were involved to improve habitability. Skylab with Raymond Loewy and Salyut and Mir space stations with Galina Balashova were exceptions (see Fig. 3.3a, b) whose innovative visions challenged prevailing engineering attitudes of the day. Given the low priority of designing for anything except pure functionality, it is no surprise that human experience in ‘abnormal’ environments reflected abnormal responses when compared to so-called normal environments. However, given the premise that extraterrestrial environments share a core set of limiting characteristics (e.g., microgravity, radiation, no atmosphere) and human habitation in such places 3

https://gridium.com/space-station-maintenance-skylab/ Isolated and Confined Environments. 5 Extreme Environments. 4

32

3 Habitability as SPACE

Fig. 3.3 (a) Full-scale mockup of a concept for an artificial-G, shuttle-compatible space station interior designed by Raymond Loewy/William Snaith, Inc., for a habitability working group at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala (credit: NASA/MSFC). (b) Design for the cabinet of the space station Mir, final version interior design (1980) (credit: Archive Galina Balashowa)

share common challenges (e.g., isolation, confinement, restricted access to others), the natural starting point was to look at the commonalities across experience among ICEs and their habitats. Box 3.3 A Poorly Designed Flexible Air Hose In 2004 a poorly designed flexible air hose caused a leak at the International Space Station (Oberg 2004). The hose was located in the Destiny science module, close to an optical window for earth-observation (see Fig. 3.4a, b). Due to a lack of appropriate handholds, the astronauts repeatedly held onto the air hose when looking out of the window. This unplanned practice finally resulted in a leaky hose, through which internal air left the station. It has by now been widely acknowledged, that ‘window gazing’ is the number one leisure activity, and that astronauts and cosmonauts spend a lot of time in front of windows looking at the Earth. Previously Skylab astronaut Gerald Carr stated in 1974, that “if something is going to stick out and make a nice handhold, it’s going to be used for a handhold” (NASA [Bull.1] 1974, p.76). Although the consideration of habitability and human factors has been integrated in the design process of human spacecraft, there is still a requirement for improving habitability. This precept is valid also for the design of commercial spacecraft. If designed from a more human-orientated view rather than a solely engineering one, the window would have been provided with means to hold on that was structurally suited for this function. [As published in the book Architecture for Astronauts (HäuplikMeusburger 2011, p. 3)].

3.2 Identifying the ’Relevant‘ Habitability Issues for Extraterrestrial. . .

33

Fig. 3.4 (a) Astronaut Susan J. Helms, Expedition Two flight engineer views the topography of a point on Earth from the nadir window in the U.S. Laboratory of the International Space Station. She is holding on the window in the Destiny module, before a handhold was installed and before the incident with the broken hose happened, 2001 (credit: NASA). (b) Pilot Stephen N. Frick looks out the nadir window of the U.S. Laboratory/Destiny during STS-110’s visit to the International Space Station (ISS). He is holding on the handles that were installed following the incident in 2002 (credit: NASA) (see Box 3.3)

3.2.1

Experience Commonalities Among Extreme Environments

Before we can design living spaces to address limitations imposed by a constrained environment, we first needed to understand the underlying causes of undesirable outcomes. Commonalities in extraterrestrial and isolated confined environments have been detailed in myriad reviews and studies of various extreme environments. Beginning with commonalities in environmental and mission related requirements, anecdotal and then systematic investigation of human experiences in ICEs and space flight environments came under scrutiny. Surprisingly, in early studies, similar individual deterioration in performance, mental functioning, and social interaction was observed in missions as short as two-weeks long and seemed to occur to greater or lesser extent regardless of mission length, danger, and extent of isolation, confinement, nationality or gender (Kanas and Feddersen 1971; Garshnek 1989; Kelly and Kanas 1992, 1993, 1994; Manzey and Lorenz 1997; Herring 1997; Morphew and Maclaren 1997; Kanas et al. 1996; Gushin et al. 1997; Gushin et al. 1996; Kanas 1990, 1998; Kanas and Manzey 2003; Lebedev 1990; Sandal 2004; Bishop 2002). A summary of common challenges can be found in Table 3.6. Separating individual and group factors from those of the lived environment has been complicated by the unique impact that isolated, confined environments have on participants. The impact of isolation and its sister, confinement, are repeatedly underestimated by participants as well as outside support groups. Little issues can take on atypical importance to teams isolated and confined producing exaggerated

34

3 Habitability as SPACE

Table 3.6 Common challenges in extraterrestrial habitation Common challenges in extraterrestrial habitation Common challenges to the built structure Pressure differential between the pressurized volume and the space environment, microgravity, radiation, extreme temperatures, vacuum or caustic atmosphere, limited possibilities to repair and adapt, abrasive or caustic soils/dust, micro meteors, solar flares

Common challenges for the inhabitants Microgravity, limited space, isolation, confinement, risk, micro-society, sleep disruption, gastrointestinal disturbances, and somatic complaints as well as psychological reports of boredom, restlessness, anxiety, anger, loss of motivation, temporal and spatial disorientation, interpersonal conflict, homesickness, irritability, difficulties in concentration and deficits in task performance over time; monotony

Table 3.7 Crew miscommunication, misunderstanding and interpersonal conflict (Santy et al. 1993) Mission phase

Number of incidents

Preflight training Inflight operations Payload/experiments Housekeeping Personal hygiene Postflight activities Totals

9 26 4 5 5 7 42

Impact Low 6 9 1 1 1 3 18

Mod. 3 12 3 3 3 4 19

High 0 5 0 1 1 0 5

responses to stimuli (or lack of) that would not normally provoke such responses. For instance, one of the first surveys of American astronauts who flew on international space missions between 1981 and 1990 conducted by Santy et al. (1993) found the highest rates of miscommunication, misunderstandings and interpersonal conflicts were in the moderate to high mission impact category and occurred during the in-flight operations over mundane and routine matters involving payload/experiment resources, housekeeping tasks and personal hygiene issues (see Table 3.7). Anecdotal evidence from the earliest extreme environments similarly clearly indicated problematic areas in which even short-term individual and group functioning had been compromised to some extent by the presence of communication breakdowns, interpersonal conflict, individualized responses to environmental stressors and conflicts over authority and control (Anderson 1991; Bishop et al. 1999; Herring 1997; Kanas et al. 2001a, b; Morphew and Maclaren 1997; Sandal et al. 1996; Santy 1994; Santy et al. 1993). In particular the following problems have been reported on space stations, submarines, polar and simulator facilities: Interpersonal conflicts, somatic complaints, sleep disturbances, boredom, restlessness, decrements in performance, and decline in group compatibility. In many of them substance abuse has been confirmed.

3.2 Identifying the ‘Relevant’ Habitability Issues for Extraterrestrial. . .

35

The well-documented phenomena of displacement6 and development of hostility towards ‘mission control’ and ‘home office’ groups is at least partially due to a lack of shared perspective as the lived experience of crews grows increasingly more discrepant from those on the ground (Nicholas 1987; Kanas et al. 2001a, b) (Box 3.4). The very fact that these phenomena have occurred in almost all ICE groups, regardless of specific environment, and to varying extent to most individuals involved regardless of culture or gender strongly suggests that future extraterrestrial groups will be at risk for these experiences as well. Box 3.4 Astronauts on Strike Gerald P. Carr, Edward G. Gibson, and William R. Pogue were the third and last crew of the Skylab space station (Skylab 4, also SL-4). On December 28, 1973, for a little over 90 minutes, or one full orbit of Earth, NASA mission control in Houston, Texas, lost contact with the crew. Some have called this the first strike in space, due to the heavy workload of the astronauts, and the astronauts asking for a Sunday off. This is what Ed Gibson says about this day: He [Gerald ‘Jerry’ Carr] was trying to be a good commander and he was watching out for us, because he could see that we were really getting worn down to a little nubby trying to work as late as we could and getting up early and just trying to make the whole thing work. So he said, “Look. This is not the way. We need Sundays off.” So all of a sudden it was “We’re going on strike,” and that somehow got out in the press. So I still hear about it today. Because Jerry asked for Sundays off. I was going to work Sundays anyway, because I always did. I always worked every day. Every minute I was up there, I was doing something. [. . .] What happened was that the ground got to be a little obnoxious at times, just continually asking for one thing after another. And every time we’d come up on a ground station, we’d start working, you’d have to drop whatever you were doing and go on over and talk to them. We said, “Well, let’s make it only so that one person has got to do that. We’ll take turns. The rest of the guys, you turn off your radios and just one person does it.” Well, we screwed up again. We ended up in a situation where all of our radios were off. We didn’t have it right who was doing what. So there was about an orbit went by and finally we said, “We haven’t heard anything from the ground, have we.” So then we turned the radio back on. Of course, they’d been calling us all that time, and they attributed it that it was something deliberate. At least the press did, anyway. (NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project, Edited Oral History Transcript 2000)

As it became undeniable that many ICE psychosocial stressors can and did lead to degraded performance, the contribution of impoverished habitability went through a similar cycle of tacit recognition and similar disregard. As early as 1985, commonly reported habitat related experiences were “problems associated with interior space, food, hygiene, temperature, decor, odor, and noise” (Connors et al. 1985, p. 60). In

6

Displacement is a psychological defense mechanism in which negative feelings are transferred from the original source of the emotion to a less threatening person or object (see Kanas and Feddersen 1971).

36

3 Habitability as SPACE

STRESSORS ON THE CREW DEGRADED CREW PERFORMANCE CREATION OF POTANTIAL SAFETY HAZARD

COUNTER MEASURES AGAINST STRESS

COUNTER MEASURES AGAINST ERROR

Fig. 3.5 The crew safety-human factors interaction model (adapted from Cohen and HäuplikMeusburger 2015; original image by Marc M. Cohen)

Table 3.8 Stressors for Long-term human spaceflight and possible countermeasures related to space architecture (Dudley-Rowley et al. 2004) Stressors associated to habitability Volume limitations

Effect on human behavior Lack of privacy; feelings of claustrophobia

Confinement; isolation; separation Noise, vibrations

Feelings of claustrophobia; lack of motivation; “cabin fever”; degraded performance Sleep disturbances, poor communication and misunderstandings

Lighting, illumination

Fatigue; irritability; blurred vision

Architectural countermeasures against stress Interior layout, interior zoning, windows (real and virtual), integration of technology (VR, MR) Layout (social events, visitors, private communication with family and friends) Vibration, isolation and control, spatial and temporal zoning of activities Lighting design, mix of natural light, ambient light and task-specific lighting

the same year, the Space Station Crew Safety Alternatives Study (Cohen and Junge 1984) introduced the Crew Safety-Human Factors Interaction Model. The relationships and direct influences are illustrated in Fig. 3.5. “In this model, a stressor (such as one of the threats) can lead to degraded performance, which can contribute to human error, unless appropriate and effective countermeasures are available to the crew.” (Dudley-Rowley et al. 2001, p. 1). In 2004, M. Dudley-Rowley, M. M. Cohen and P. Flores conducted a comparison of the 1985 NASA study with the safety record on Mir (operational between 1986–1996). Their findings highlighted the relationship between stressors and the architecture of the habitat and identified examples of stressors, their effects, as well as suitable architectural and design countermeasures (see Table 3.8). The overlap

3.2 Identifying the ‘Relevant’ Habitability Issues for Extraterrestrial. . .

37

between negative outcomes from psychosocial stressors and those related to poor habitability argued strongly for treating these as interactive factors. It wasn’t until more analogue habitats became available and sample sizes accrued across environments that it became possible to begin a closer examination of how habitability affected human performance and wellbeing in ICEs amidst the noise of uncontrolled, highly variable and volatile environments populated by a hugely heterogeneous pool of participants. Across time, analogues, and studies, most of the long duration performance effects found so far seem to be associated with general stress effects related to problems of adaptation to the extreme living and working conditions in a confined and isolated environment which are mediated by individual factors such as personality and culture and habitability factors. For example, whether lack of privacy is perceived as a stressor, and thus produces detrimental effects on mood and performance, largely depends on the cultural background of individuals (Raybeck 1991) and their embedded fit to the situation (living space in which they find themselves). All ICEs are characterized by very limited personal quarters which subsequently impact perceptions of privacy, density and crowding. Some cultures are far more comfortable with small physical living spaces than others. Women have been found to tolerate higher density better than males yet prefer greater degrees of privacy. Privacy is also connected to the overall mission scenario and layout of the habitat (see Sect. 7.7.1). During the Apollo missions, astronauts slept, shaved and defecated next to each other in one volume and had no privacy, but since “most pilots are not used to privacy (. . .) it was not a problem”7. The Salyut cosmonauts did not have private crew quarters. They slept next to each other and preferred having a visual overview of the station, which made them feel more secure. The Skylab station and the MIR space station provided centrally located but spatially enclosed crew quarters. Both stations eventually consisted of various modules; this offered the opportunity for astronauts to relocate their place to sleep in another (not dedicated) part of the station. So, the same living quarters have been very differently experienced across individuals depending on a multitude of mediating factors! Similar effects have been found as well as other stressors, like monotony and boredom (NRC, Space Studies Board 1998, pp. 94–227; Kanas 1998; Otto 2007; Basner et al. 2014; Vessel and Russo 2015), sleep and circadian rhythms (NCR, Space Studies Board NRC, Space Studies Board 1998; NASA 1991; Lim and Dinges 2010; Barger et al. 2014), or autonomy and meaningful work (Vanhove et al. 2014). Poor habitability not only appears to contribute to ICE stress and subsequent poor adaptation but several recent lines of research have suggested that architectural design, itself, may independently contribute to poor (or otherwise better) adaptation (Kearney 2013; Stuster 1996; Kanas and Manzey 2008a, b).

7 Schmitt, Harrison. 2009. Transcript not published. [interv.] Sandra Häuplik-Meusburger. Vienna, Austria, 2009.

38

3 Habitability as SPACE

Table 3.9 Summary of recent and operational short-term and long-term studies related to Habitability Research Environment Space

Earth-bound Site

Short-term missions 90 days a Space Stations (Mir, ISS)

a

McMurdo, South Pole Station winter over crews a Lunar Palace (Youegong-1) b Biosphere-2 (700d) b Concordia (420d) b HI-SEAS c IBMP/SFINCSS’99/Mars500

a

Operational facilities In-situ simulators c Behavioral laboratories b

3.2.2

Move from Short Duration Missions to Long Duration Missions

Once the realization that the interaction between mission and human related characteristics and human responses were far more critical in defining effective living spaces for extreme environments, the logical evolution was to move away from trying to utilize short duration transition spaces (e.g., Shuttle, MDRS, HERA) as models for long duration living spaces. Consequently, the shift from short duration exposure studies to studies of long duration human adaptation to ICE environments also provided an opportunity to more closely examine the importance of factors that supported thriving rather than merely surviving. This required a shift from the importance of place to importance of living space, i.e., instead of the characteristics of the location being primary design drivers, the question was asked how the space provided satisfied the needs of the inhabitants living within given the mission they were tasked to complete. Short duration living spaces were effectively relegated to proof of concept and hardware testbeds while analogues characterized by long duration mission profiles rose in desirability. The result was a lengthening of mission duration in many simulation facilities in addition to expanding research into existing operational environments to achieve the desired mission profile (see Table 3.9). However, identifying the relevant characteristics of long duration habitats has not been a straightforward task (Box 3.5). Many ICE analogue environments have non-research mandates that still prioritize operational functionality (e.g., Antarctic bases, military submarines) over testing provisions for optimal human health and wellbeing. Even in pure research analogues, there have been various attempts to create habitats that incorporated key characteristics that were subsequently undermined by intervention. For example, there was the famous problem in Biosphere 2 with the absorption of oxygen by microbes in the soil occurring at a higher rate than expected. This resulted in higher levels of CO2 that should have stimulated compensatory plant growth to replace the consumed oxygen but instead was

3.3 Habitability Design as Countermeasure: Addressing the Negative Effects of ICEs

39

absorbed by the concrete structure. At 18 months into the 2-year mission, it was necessary to provide supplementary oxygen in order to finish the project (MacCallum et al. 2004). Had this been on Mars or a space station, a very different solution involving changes in structure would have been necessitated (see also Box 7.4 in Chap. 7). Box 3.5 What Constitutes a Long Duration Mission? Deciding on what kind of habitats and situations qualified for inclusion in this book has been an interesting exercise. Take sailing ships for instance. Like space missions, they are expeditions, i.e., move from place to place in a progressive sequence but they are also habitats since a persistent shelter is maintained. They sometimes entail long continuous periods of isolation and confinement. The longest ocean voyage was apparently achieved by Reid Stowe in 2010 who deliberately spent 1152 days sailing a 70 ft. (21.3 m), 60-ton (54,400 kg) gaff-rigged schooner around the ocean without resupply or stopping in a harbor simulating a Mars mission duration (https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Stowe). If we use time alone as a defining metric, this ‘mission’ would qualify. But that was one guy and he had his girlfriend with him the first quarter of the journey. There are other long cruises but they all stop frequently. And early explorers stopped at every available bit of land they found and were made up of crews significantly larger than most projected space crews. However, we decided to include nuclear submarines on the list because of their extreme isolation protocols but not sailing ships. At some point, the distinction between classifications can go either way.” Sheryl Bishop, Jan. 2021

3.3

Habitability Design as Countermeasure: Addressing the Negative Effects of ICEs

Addressing the negative impacts of confinement and isolation with habitability factors has been advocated for decades in various planning workshops for both the moon and Mars (Connors et al. 1985; Stuster 1989; Stuster et al. 2000). It has been argued that physical and operational environmental variables that significantly impact individual and group behavior can be mitigated by ‘state of the art’ habitability and facilitate human welfare and successful performance during long duration missions. The ‘risk of incompatible vehicle or habitat design’ has been identified by NASA as a recognized risk to human health and performance in space (Whitmore et al. 2013, p. 3). Many have outlined detailed lists of critical features that needed addressing (see Table 3.10). In 1985 the NASA report ‘Living Aloft’ (Connors et al. 1985) described a number of projected habitability issues of extended spaceflight. Twenty-five years later, in 2010, Stuster identified a list of 24 issues with behavioral implications for human spaceflight derived from a content analysis of personal NASA astronaut journals that were maintained for this purpose during expeditions onboard the International Space Station. According to Stuster, the study provided the first

40

3 Habitability as SPACE

Table 3.10 Habitability design Relevant issues potentially addressed through design The Physical Environment (Interior Space, Food, Hygiene, Temperature and Humidity, Décor and Lighting, Odor, Noise), Health and Leisure (Recreation, Exercise), Privacy (Crowding, Territoriality), Complex Effects. Connors et al. (1985) Including habitable volume, crew quarters, leisure applications, décor, and windows. Kanas and Manzey (2003) Outside Communication, Group Interaction, Recreation/Leisure, Sleep, Food (Top 10 of 24 issues); Clothing, Exercise, Medical Support, Personal Hygiene, Habitat Aesthetics, Privacy Personal Space, Waste Disposal and management, Onboard training, Simulation and task preparation. Stuster (2010) Sleep (rest, relaxation, sleep and storage), Hygiene (personal hygiene, shower, toilet, housekeeping), Food (store, prepare, grow, consume, and storage), Work (operations, experiments, communication, education, training, and storage), Leisure (free-time activities, exercise, intimate behavior, and storage). Häuplik-Meusburger (2011) Relevant Issues identified in Human Factors Research, that can be potentially addressed through design and architecture (Sources: As in table)

quantitative data on which he based a rank-ordering of the behavioral issues associated with long duration space operations (Stuster 2010). The top 10 issues account for 88% of all astronaut journal entries that he had examined and are listed in along with other behavioral and habitability issues identified by various researchers in human factors research. From the list of 24 issues, Stuster further identified 14 behavioral issues (see Table 3.10) that could potentially be addressed through habitat design: sleep, clothing, exercise, medical support, personal hygiene, food preparation, group interaction, habitat aesthetics, outside communications, recreational opportunities, privacy and personal space, waste disposal and management, onboard training, simulation and task preparation, and behavioral issues associated with the microgravity environment. Habitability design can be envisioned as a viable contributor to both active and passive countermeasures for certain stressors. Particularly for long, remote mission scenarios, mission stress can be reduced through internal architecture and systems (Winisdoerffer and Soulez-Larivière 1992, p. 315; Bishop et al. 2016). Examples of areas where appropriate design has already been employed and acknowledged as a countermeasure are listed in Table 3.11.

3.4

How to Evaluate and Prove Effectiveness: Operational Versus Research Simulation Facilities

So, how are we to evaluate and prove effectiveness of habitation factors when we lack true analogues for extraterrestrial conditions? Why don’t we know more about what is needed? As long duration missions are most relevant to extraterrestrial habitability issues, scrutiny of existing long duration facilities highlight why advancement of habitability research in ICEs has been so agonizingly slow. Progress

3.4 How to Evaluate and Prove Effectiveness: Operational Versus Research. . .

41

Table 3.11 Examples of effective design countermeasures Goal of the (counter) measure Enhancing performance

Enhancing psychological functioning

Enhancing social cohesion

Problem Artificial and inadequate lighting can lead to fatigue, irritability and blurred vision. A potential safety hazard is mistaken perception Constant confinement and isolation as well as the decrease of privacy can lead to feelings of claustrophobia, loneliness and impaired judgment The withdrawal from the normal social matrix and dependence on a small community can lead to depressed mood, social withdrawal or group splintering

Exemplary means of how to achieve the goal Appropriate lighting design can counteract degraded performance Adaptable interior configurations allow for social group activities and changes in an environment characterized by monotony and overfamiliarity Appropriate habitat layout can facilitate social interaction (e.g., events, group gatherings, shared activities) and as well as provide for private interactions (e.g., communications with family and friends, small groups/dyads) which can counteract the negative effects of isolated, confined environments

has been slow primarily due to the overriding focus on survivability (see Chap. 2, and Box 3.1 as an example for the challenging communication on habitability issues). Existing facilities currently vary widely in their existing structures as well as their purpose. For instance, in Antarctica, acknowledged as the ‘best’ analogue environment for long duration space missions due to the extensive duration of winter isolation, there exists only one pure research facility, Concordia (see also Sect. 5.1. 2.3), a collaboration between France and Italy, consisting of three buildings, which are interlinked by enclosed walkways, built on Dome C, one of the coldest and most remote places on Earth. Operational since 2005, the station can accommodate 16 persons during the winter and 32 people during the summer season. Participants are selected via an involved process of screening and selection procedures. Still, “How to pack your mind for a trip away from home, from friends and family, for a period of a year?” That’s one of the most challenges voiced by Alexander Kumar while wintering over at Concordia in Antarctica (Kumar 2012) (Box 3.6). Box 3.6 A Home in Antarctica In an interview, medical doctor and researcher Alexander Kumar, was asked which colors and sounds he associates with his home now (while being in Antarctica). This is what he answered: I will give you an example. One of the glaciologists here caused a leak, a flood of water, that leaked from the top floor to the middle floor. When I opened the door and walked out, it was the (continued)

42

3 Habitability as SPACE

Box 3.6 (continued) sound of raindrops. And that reminded me of the North of England, where I grew up. Because it always rains there. So, in terms of sounds, tastes and smells, I would say that all senses, where you [me] live have color, but here everything becomes black and white. There is an element of sensorial deprivation of course, but, you know, you have to learn how to get the best . . . for example if you have someone that has partially or totally loss of sight, you have to understand how to get the best from your hearing, if you can’t see. And vice versa. The interview with medical doctor and researcher Alexander Kumar was conducted in 2012, while he was in Antarctica via Skype (Kumar 2012). Listen to the interview: https://cba.fro.at/65695 All other bases in Antarctica would be considered operational environments supporting scientific, logistic, strategic and military programs. The largest is McMurdo Station (Fig. 3.6), operated by the United States on Ross Island. Supporting a population of 1000 in the summer months and approximately 200 in the winter months, the site is a modern-day operational science station, which includes a harbor, three airfields (two seasonal), a heliport and more than 100 buildings. Functionally, it is a base with seasonal and transient (albeit some with considerable tenure) inhabitants and not a settlement. Participants are primarily screened for physical and psychiatric disqualifying conditions with an emphasis on skill set but with little attention given to compatibility or fit within the larger group (see Sects. 7.7 and 7.4.1). At the other end of the operational base spectrum is Chile’s Presidente Eduardo Frei Montalva Base which includes a residential area with a hospital, school, bank, small supermarket, etc. The maximum population during summer is 150 people and about 80 people during the winter, including families with children (https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Presidente_Eduardo_Frei_Montalva, accessed 4/8/21). Participants are assigned for multi-year rotations and the sense of community is prominent. While situated in true extreme environments posing real risks, ICE operational long duration facilities like McMurdo Station are compromised by their focus on non-research priorities and difficulty in implementing scientific protocols to test human adaptation or station modification to test habitation configurations. Laboratory simulation chamber facilities (e.g., HERA, IBMP) lack real danger and risk. A compromise eventually emerged that took the form of habitats built specifically for research purposes situated in moderately challenging or isolated locations in which more experimental control could be implemented as well as moderate confinement and isolation. Chamber facilities and the in-situ simulation habitats utilize minimalist spartan chambered structures in which to simulate the confinement and limited isolation of missions of varying durations. Like the International Space Station, there is almost no accommodation beyond functionality. Unlike the ISS, these facilities only loosely mimic protocols for EVA egress/ingress, communication delays, the employment of space suits and other factors that would be in place in

3.4 How to Evaluate and Prove Effectiveness: Operational Versus Research. . .

43

waste handling and recycling vehicle maintanance

heavy vehicle maintanance facility

cold food storage

Post office/central supply Restroom module

RECREATION/LOUNGE waste management CENTRAL SERVICES

hazardous waste facility

storage

SOUTH POLE STORAGE AREA ICE PIER FIRE/MED LODGING TRADES SHOP WINTERS QUARTERS BAY

N

ICE COVER

modular office

Waster water treatment plant

Diesel fuel tanks

Data Center IT Support/ mechanical equipment center

Power plant

electrical warehouse

Water distillation plant

food warehouse

McMurdo operations/air traffic weather

Helicopter Pads

Helicopter Hangars

FIELD SCIENCE SUPPORT/ CARGO

Gym Crary Science and Eng Center

Fig. 3.6 Overview Site plan of the McMurdo Station (credit: The Authors)

an actual extraterrestrial environment. Most are not situated in places characterized by significant environmental risk as with Antarctica. They do, however, provide the opportunity to be somewhat modified in order to target specific design parameters of interest and, thus, offer opportunities for assessing efficacy and effectiveness of different design implementations. Efforts to test various components of habitability and human adaptation in these modular structures has generated growing interest in the construction of new research facilities that can be more easily modified to

44

3 Habitability as SPACE

Table 3.12 Exemplars of past and current chamber facilities and simulation habitats. The facilities simulating long-term human space missions exceeding 6 months are underlined and those in realistic environments are noted with an asterisk. (updated list from Häuplik-Meusburger et al. 2017) Past simulators and simulation missions Regenerative Life Support Study by NASA Langley Research Center Apollo Ground-based Tests MOLAB Skylab Medical Experiments Altitude Test (SMEAT)* Skylab Mobile Laboratory (SML)* Ben Franklin Underwater Research Laboratory* Tektite I and II Underwater Research Laboratories* BIO-Plex (Bioregenerative Planetary Life Support Systems Test Complex) BIOS-3 (Institute of Biophysics, Krasnoyarsk, Russia) Biosphere-2* Lunar Mars Life Support Test Project (LMLSTP) Closed Ecology Experiment Facilities (CEEF) Jules Verne Underwater Facility*

Current simulators & simulation missions (as of 2021) Aquarius and NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO)* Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS)* Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station (FMARS)* Concordia Research Station in Antarctica* NASA Fast Track Horizontal and Vertical Mock-Ups for lunar habitation Environmental Habitat (EnviHab) European Mars Analog Research Station (EuroMARS)* Australian Mars Research Station (MARS-Oz)* Virtual Simulators located at Industries, such as TAS-I VR Lab IBMP (RSA and ESA) Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) HI-SEAS Hawaii Space Exploration Analog (longterm 2013–2018*; short-term 2018-ongoing) Haughton Mars Project (HMP) Devon Island Lunar Palace—Yuegong-1 Lunares

accommodate a wider range of interior design elements under conditions of varying complexity to test efficacy and effectiveness. Table 3.12 displays a list of past and present analogue habitats that have incorporated habitability features and begun to approach full-scale simulation research facilities.

3.5

The Challenge of Future Missions

In the context of future extraterrestrial missions, it may be that the most severe stressors may involve monotony and boredom resulting from low workload, hypostimulation, and restricted social contacts due to extreme isolation from family and friends, as well as new forms of social relations requiring increased spatial flexibility. The challenge is that current countermeasure strategies developed for near-Earth orbital facilities will be less effective or completely inoperable. For instance, support strategies that currently provide ISS crews private real-time family conferences and internet phone facilities will not be possible during longer missions, e.g., to Mars, where the communication lag is 20 min or more one-way. Similar current efficient strategies to ameliorate stress levels during short-term

References

45

missions (e.g., surprise packages or fresh foodstuffs on resupply vessels) will be impossible to provide during interplanetary voyages and Mars missions. Individual coping and adaptation is strongly related to various interpersonal factors; however, leadership style and group dynamics are also key factors responsible for exacerbating or ameliorating stress, or facilitating coping and adaptation (Kanas 1997; Kanas and Manzey 2003; Sandal et al. 1995). Currently, all missions are heavily overseen, managed and monitored by respective national mission control organizations. Not only will the burden of support have to shift away from the ‘absent’ network of family and friends to members of the present crew, operational control will involve significantly higher degrees of (up to 100%) autonomy and local decision making across the board. Crew members will have to be able to balance needs for affiliation and support with autonomy and privacy needs. Individuals with high needs for social support will likely be more susceptible to the negative effects of social isolation from friends and family (Sandal 1999) as well as more likely to engage in interpersonal disclosure that later leads to discomfort and regret (Suedfeld 2003). Selected individuals will be characterized by effective coping strategies based on self-reliance and autonomy as well as cooperative group focus. A number of habitability factors will impact the coping ability of crewmembers in dealing with these new and challenging living conditions (Kanas 1997; Kanas and Manzey 2003; Sandal et al. 1995). Both interior habitability design integration and mission structure factors will play a significant role in generating group fusion (e.g., cohesion, teamwork, interpersonal trust) or group fission (e.g., discord, conflict, miscommunication, reduction in performance and wellbeing). In this context, the layout of the habitat itself, and its spatial adaptability and flexibility will probably play a much more important role. An effective extraterrestrial habitat needs to actively provide for a multitude of needs and demands that would otherwise be supplemented on Earth through other sources. What you take is what you have in terms of people, space and equipment. Everything has value. All elements will interact with each other in a much more open way. Thus, space habitats need to more holistically encompass the spectrum of human existence rather than simply the segment we spend when not at work or elsewhere. There is no ‘elsewhere’ to be. In Chaps. 4 and 5, relevant research findings addressing habitability issues for these facilities will be covered.

References Anderson, C. (1991). Polar psychology – Coping with it all. Nature, 350(6316), 290. Barger, L. K., Flynn-Evans, E. E., Kubey, A., et al. (2014). Prevalence of sleep deficiency and use of hypnotic drugs in astronauts before, during, and after spaceflight: An observational study. The Lancet. Neurology, 13(9), 904–912. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70122-XI. Basner, M., Dinges, D. F., Mollicone, D. J., Savelev, I., et al. (2014). Psychological and behavioral changes during confinement in a 520-day simulated interplanetary Mission to Mars. PLoS One, 9(3), e93298.

46

3 Habitability as SPACE

Bishop, S. (2002). Evaluating teams in extreme environments: Deep caving, polar and desert expeditions, Society of Automotive Engineers. In 32nd international conference on environmental systems (ICES), San Antonio, Texas, USA, July 2002. Bishop, S. L. (2006). Psychological and psychosocial health and well-being at Pole Station. In C. S. Cockell (Ed.), Project Boreas: A station for the Martian geographic North pole (pp. 160–171). London: British Interplanetary Society. Bishop, S. L., Santy, P. A., & Faulk, D. (1999) Team dynamics analysis of the Huautla cave diving expedition: A case study, 1999-01-2099. SAE Technical Papers. https://doi.org/10.4271/199901-2099 Bishop, S., Haueplik-Meusburger, S., Guined, J., & Peldszus, R. (2016). Bionomic design countermeasures for enhancing cognitive and psychological functioning and crew performance in isolated and confined habitats. International Congress for Environmental Systems, Space Architecture, Vienna, Austria, July 10–14, 2016. Cohen, M. (2012). Mockups 101: Code and standard research for space habitat analogues. AIAA Space 2012 Conference. Pasadena, California, 2012. Cohen, M. M., & Häuplik-Meusburger, S. (2015). What do we give up and leave behind? ICES2015-56, 45th international conference on environmental systems, Bellevue, Washington, 12–16 July 2015. Cohen, M. M., & Junge, M. K. (1984). Space station crew safety: Human factors model. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 28(10), 908–912. Compton, W. D., & Benson, C. D. (1983). Living and working in space, a history of Skylab. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Connolly, J., & Daues, K., & Howard, Jr., R. L., & Toups, L. (2006). Engineering, construction, and operations in challenging environment. In Definition and development of habitation readiness level (HRLs) for planetary surface habitats, earth & space (pp. 1–8). Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers. Connors, M. M., Harrison, A. A., & Akins, F. R. (1985). Living aloft. Human requirements for extended spaceflight. Washington, DC: NASA Scientific and Technical Information Branch. Dudley-Rowley, M., Whitney, S., Bishop, S., Caldwell, B., & Nolan, P. D. (2001). Size, composition and time: Implications for habitat and workplace design in extreme environments. Accessed July 1, 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272092423_Crew_ Size_Composition_and_Time_Implications_for_Habitat_and_Workplace_Design_in_ Extreme_Environments Dudley-Rowley, M., Cohen, M. M., & Flores, P. (2004). 1985 NASA-Rockwell Space Station crew safety study: Results from Mir. Aviakosmicheskaia i Ekologicheskaia Meditsina, 38(1), 15–28. Garshnek, V. (1989). Crucial factor: Human. Space Policy, 5(3), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0265-9646(89)90087-8. Gushin, V. I., Kolintchenko, V. A., Efimov, V. A., & Davies, C. (1996). Psychological evaluation and support during EXEMSI. In S. Bonting (Ed.), Advances in space biology and medicine (pp. 283–295). London: JAI Press. Gushin, V. I., Zaprisa, N. S., Kolinitchenko, T. B., Efimov, V. A., Smirnova, T. M., Vinokhodova, A. G., & Kanas, N. (1997). Content analysis of the crew communication with external communicants under prolonged isolation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 68 (12), 1093–1098. Häuplik-Meusburger, S. (2011). Architecture for astronauts: An activity-based approach. Springer Science & Business Media. Häuplik-Meusburger, S., & Bannova, O. (2016). Space architecture education for engineers and architects. Springer International. Häuplik-Meusburger, S., Binsted, K., & Bassingthwaighte, T. (2017). Habitability studies and full scale simulators: Preliminary themes following HISEAS mission IV. In 47th international conference on environmental systems, Charleston, South Carolina, 16–20 July 2017. Herring, L. (1997). Astronaut draws attention to psychology, communication. The Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 2(1), 42–47. Kanas, N. (1990). Psychological, psychiatric, and interpersonal aspects of long-duration space missions. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 27(5), 457–463. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.26165.

References

47

Kanas, N. (1997). Psychosocial value of space simulation for extended spaceflight. In S. L. Bonting (Ed.) Advances in Space Biology and Medicine, V6, pp 81–91. Kanas, N. (1998). Psychiatric issues affecting long duration space missions. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 69(12), 1211–1216. Kanas, N., & Feddersen, W. E. (1971). Behavioral, psychiatric, and sociological problems of long duration space missions. NASA TM 58067. Houston, TX: NASA Johnson Space Center. Kanas, N., & Manzey, D. (2003). Space psychology and psychiatry. Dordrecht: Springer/Microcosm Press. Kanas, N., & Manzey, D. (2008a). Space psychology and psychiatry (2nd ed.). El Segundo, CA: Microcosm Press. Kanas, N., & Manzey, D. (2008b). Basic issues of human adaptation to space flight. In Space psychology and psychiatry (pp. 15–48). Dordrecht: Springer. Kanas, N., Weiss, D. S., & Marmar, C. R. (1996). Crewmember interactions during a Mir space station simulation. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 67(10), 969–975. Kanas, N., Salnitskiy, V., Grund, E. M., et al. (2001a). Psychosocial issues in space: Results from shuttle/Mir. Gravitational and Space Biology Bulletin, 14(2), 35–45. Kanas, N., Salnitsky, V., Weiss, D. S., et al. (2001b). Crewmember and ground personnel interactions over time during shuttle/Mir space missions. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 72, 453–61.16. Kearney, A. B. (2013). Mitigating risks to psychological and behavioral health in long duration spaceflight: Towards a portfolio of countermeasures (White paper). Prepared for NASAJohnson Space Center, Houston, TX: Behavioral Health and Performance. Kelly, A. D., & Kanas, N. (1992). Crewmember communication in space: A survey of astronauts and cosmonauts. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, 63(8), 721–726. Kelly, A. D., & Kanas, N. (1993). Communication between space crews and ground personnel: A survey of astronauts and cosmonauts. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, 64(9 Pt 1), 795–800. Kelly, A. D., & Kanas, N. (1994). Leisure activities in space – A survey of astronauts and cosmonauts. Acta Astronautica, 32(6), 451–457. Kumar 2012, interview, radio broadcast, Häuplik-Meusburger, S., Holzgethan, V. (Host). (2012, October 9). Alexander Kumar gives an insight to daily life in Antarctica. In Spacecuriosity. https://cba.fro.at/65695 Lebedev, V. (1990). Diary of a cosmonaut – 211 days in space. United States and Canada, Bantam Air & Space Series. ISBN: 0-553-28778-8. Lim, J., & Dinges, D. F. (2010). A meta-analysis of the impact of short-term sleep deprivation on cognitive variables. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0018883. MacCallum, T., Poynter, J., & Bearden, D. (2004). Lessons learned from biosphere 2: When viewed as a ground simulation/analog for long duration human space exploration and settlement. SAE Transactions, 113(1), 1095–1104. Manzey, D., & Lorenz, B. (1997). Human performance during prolonged space flight. Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 1(2), 68. Manzey, D., Schiewe, A., & Fassbender, C. (1995). Psychological countermeasures for extended manned spaceflights. Acta Astronautica, 35(4–5), 339–361. Morphew, M. E., & Maclaren, S. (1997). Blaha suggests need for future research on the effects of isolation and confinement. Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 2(1), 52–53. NASA. (1991). Space human factors discipline science plan. Space Human Factors Program, Life Sciences Division. NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC. Retrieved May 18, 2020, from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930012181.pdf NASA [Bull.1] (1974). Skylab Experience Bulletin No.1: Translation Modes and Bump Protection. Houston, Texas: NASA, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, 1974. JSC-09535. NASA, Johnson Space Center Oral History Project, Edited Oral History Transcript. (2000). Edward G. Gibson, Interviewed by Carol Butler, Houston, Texas – 1 December 2000. Retrieved May

48

3 Habitability as SPACE

18, 2020, from https://historycollection.jsc.nasa.gov/JSCHistoryPortal/history/oral_histories/ GibsonEG/GibsonEG_12-1-00.htm Nicholas, J. M. (1987). Small groups in orbit: Group interaction and crew performance on Space Station. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 58, 1009–1013. NRC, Space Studies Board. (1998). A strategy for research in space biology and medicine in the new century. Behavioral issues. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Oberg, J. (2004). Space station crew prepares to fix window: Damage accidentally caused last month. NBC News. Retrieved September 2, 2020, from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4253674/ ns/technology_and_science-space/t/space-station-crew-prepares-fix-window/#.X0_XH8hKiUk Otto, C. A. (2007). Antarctica: Analog for spaceflight. Presentation to NASA BHP. Houston, TX, February 2007. Raybeck, D. (1991). Proxemics and privacy: Managing the problems of life in confined environments. In A. A. Harrison, Y. A. Clearwater, & C. P. McKay (Eds.), From Antarctica to outer space (pp. 317–333). New York, NY: Springer. Sandal, G. M. (1999). The effects of personality and interpersonal relations on crew performance during space simulation studies. Life Support and Biosphere Sciences, 5(4), 461–470. Sandal, G. M. (2004). Culture and tension during an international Space Station simulation: Results from SFINCSS’99. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 75(7), C44–C51. Sandal, G. M., Vaernes, R., & Ursin, H. (1995). Interpersonal relations during simulated space missions. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 66, 617–624. Sandal, G. M., Vaernes, R., Bergan, P. T., Warncke, M., & Ursin, H. (1996). Psychological reactions during polar expeditions and isolation in hyperbaric chambers. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 67(3), 227–234. Santy, P. A. (1994). Choosing the right stuff: The psychological selection of astronauts and cosmonauts. Connecticut: Praeger. Santy, P. A., Holland, A. W., Looper, L., & Marcondes-North, R. (1993). Multicultural factors in the space environment: Results of an international shuttle crew debrief. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 64(3), 196–200. Stuster, J. (1989). Habitability during long-duration space missions – Key issues associated with a mission to Mars. In Proceedings from American Astronomical Society Conference, Boston, MA, January 1989. Stuster, J. (1996). Bold endeavors: Lessons from polar and space exploration. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. Stuster, J. W. (2010). Behavioral issues associated with isolation and confinement: Review and analysis of astronaut journals. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA/TM2010-216130. Stuster, J., Bachelard, C., & Suedfeld, P. (2000). The relative importance of behavioral issues during long-duration ICE missions. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 71, A17– A25. Suedfeld, P. (2003). Canadian space psychology: The future may almost be here. Canadian Psychology, 44, 85–92. Vanhove A. J., Herian, M. N., Harris, P. D., Luthans, F., & DeSimone J. A. (2014). Psychosocial well-being and performance: Final report (White paper). NASA/TM-2015-218565 prepared for NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX: Behavioral Health and Performance. Retrieved May 18, 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274254589_Examining_Psycho social_Well-being_and_Performance_in_Isolated_Confined_and_Extreme_Environments

References

49

Vessel, E. A., & Russo, S. (2015). Effects of reduced sensory stimulation and assessment of countermeasures for sensory stimulation augmentation: A report for NASA behavioral health and performance research: Sensory stimulation augmentation tools for long duration spaceflight (NASA/TM-2015-218576). NASA-Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX. Retrieved May 18, 2020, from http://kinetic-cna.pl/web/pageFiles/kcfinder/files/adaptacja%20synaptyczna% 20ARc.pdf Weitz, P. J. (2000). Oral history transcript – Interview with Paul J. Weitz. [interv.] Rebecca Wright. 26 March 2000. Whitmore, M., McGuire, K., Margerum, S., Thompson, S., Allen, C., Bowen, C., Adelstein, B., Schuh, S., Byrne, V., & Wong, D. (2013). Evidence report: Risk of incompatible vehicle/habitat design. Houston, Texas: NASA Human Research Program Space Human Factors and Habitability Element, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center. Winisdoerffer, F., & Soulez-Larivière, C. (1992). Habitability constraints/objectives for a Mars manned mission: Internal architecture considerations. Advances in Space Research, 12(1), 315–320.

Chapter 4

Review: Studies and Architecture of Habitability Missions in Mockups and Simulated Environments

This chapter and Chap. 5 introduce and outline important milestones of the journey that lead to increasing the fidelity of habitability studies intended to eventually allow us to design the best-fit extraterrestrial habitats. Beginning with the utilization of mockups and simulated environments in this chapter and in-situ environments in Chap. 5, an overview of exemplar habitats and their associated research that have contributed to studies of extraterrestrial habitability and human factors is presented. For each exemplar habitat, the physical and social settings, as well as mission relevant details, are summarized. Images and schematic plans illustrate the facility layout (see also Fig. 1.2). For readability and comparability reasons plans have been color coded according to primary human activities. Both short and long duration contributions to knowledge are briefly discussed to emphasize how habitability has slowly emerged as a central focus in the research on human adaptation and wellbeing in extraterrestrial living spaces. The chapter is structured in alignment with the current NASA Technological Readiness Levels. Short guest contributions by astronauts and simulation crewmembers complement the information.

4.1

Increasing Fidelity for Habitability Studies

Nothing illustrates better than concrete examples. The prior chapters have described the evolution of design considerations for extraterrestrial habitability as first primarily centered on surviving the place (particular environment) to provisions of critical elements to support thriving in the optimal living space. Organized in terms of fidelity levels defined by NASA Technological Readiness Levels (TRLs), the underlying driver for the transition from place to space was the necessity to transition from short duration missions to long duration missions. Table 4.1 provides a visual overview of this chapter and Chap. 5 and at the same time a quick overview of facilities with relevant habitability studies and missions in relation to the NASA TRLs. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 S. Häuplik-Meusburger, S. Bishop, Space Habitats and Habitability, Space and Society, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69740-2_4

51

52

4 Review: Studies and Architecture of Habitability Missions in Mockups and. . .

Table 4.1 Overview of habitability studies and relevant missions in relation to NASA technological readiness levels Habitability studies/ Relevant missions Early missions TRL level Chapter

4.2 Early Missions

Short term